Search

The sharing economy is really an exciting new development that can and will continue to take on many new forms as innovation continues to broaden our horizons and break down the barriers that once stood in the way of the world becoming more like one big family.

Of course, some companies (like rental companies) have been in the sharing economy business for a long time (without being called that) and are now being updated with new models (and sometimes new players) that leverage the power of technology and social networking.

Others, have been around for just a few years, and didn’t really realize that they were part of this new movement until they read about it.

RovAir is just such a company. As all sharing economy companies do, they specialize in making valuable, under-utilized assets or services available to a large number of people who have an occasional need. In their case, the service they are providing access to is mobile broadband.

It started, back in 2008, when their founder, Tom Dolan was going on vacation for a couple of weeks and needed mobile broadband access. He purchased a two-year contract for a plug in data card, but found that after the vacation was over, he never needed the card again. That prompted him to investigate data card rentals. He soon learned that this was not something that was generally available, though there was clearly a need.

He started RovAir which targeted business travelers that occasionally needed mobile connectivity. Having been in the hotel business, he was quite familiar with this demographic.

But, they didn’t stop there. Given that moving equipment is not always that convenient, they figured out a way to perform “coordinated equipment swaps” which basically allowed multiple people to share a single access line, using their own equipment, with the caveat that only one person can be on it at a time.

Does that work?

According to Tim O’Connor, RovAir’s Senior VP of Sales and Marketing, their analytics show an average of 10 people per line. That means each user gets it for roughly three days out of each month. That’s great if that’s when he happens to be traveling, but what if it isn’t?

That is the point of RovAir’s new technology development. Until now, they had only been able to slice up the service on a per day basis, with 24-hour advanced notice required, because the transaction required manual intervention. They are just about ready to bring to market the technology that will automate the process and allow time slices on that order of minutes rather than days, and with instant on-demand access.

According to O’Connor, “We have developed a system that automatically determines what lines are available and how much data is being used on that line and can we assign it to any particular person. We are testing this today with a major carrier, but the details of that are confidential. In the past, we had a somewhat manual process, where certain information had to be entered into a computer to transfer the line. Now we have automated that process and we are now using Indiegogo to raise funds to help us accelerate that development and get it out on the market.”

He went on to note that, “What’s interesting and maybe a little ironic as that people are often willing to pay more (per minute) for a shorter time, we call them microbytes.  Say, for example, they might be happy to pay a dollar or two to send off an important email even if that only takes a couple of minutes.”

You could end up with quite a few such transactions in the course of an hour.

I found myself thinking of SETI, back in the 80s when lots of us would offer access to our computers’ processing power to assist in the search for intelligent life in the universe.

But given the increasing prevalence of wi-fi and the data capabilities of smartphones, many of which can now be configured as hot spots, I wonder if the window of opportunity might be short-lived.

But then, there could still be tremendous opportunities for this type of service in the developing world. I asked O’Connor what he thought about that.

“We actually think that is our biggest opportunity, in developing countries. When you consider offering these microbytes of access, there’s a huge, huge market for that, especially when you think about people who have never had it before. For example, they would be perfectly happy with 3G technology right now, when compared to having no access at all. We would love to move forward there, but we are small and would need certain things to be in place before we could do that.”

Perhaps what they need are the right partners.

“There is also tons of used equipment out there right now that is fully functional, that is gathering dust, because it’s not the latest and greatest, but could mean an awful lot to people in these other countries, who have no access at all.”

Sounds like a great opportunity to me. Anyone interested in learning more contact them on Twitter @Rovair.

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.

Submitted by Guest Contributor

 By Brendan May

It’s truly staggering how few companies new to the sustainability agenda understand the landscape in which they must operate.

At best, they might be aware of the pesky ‘NGO movement.’ But the lens through which they believe their company is viewed is essentially a cosy and containable quartet in which customers, investors, media and regulators rule supreme, and should be the primary focus of attention. They could not be more wrong.

The theatre of sustainable business is crowded, with a few leading actors and a vast cast of extras, some of whom matter much more to the overall plot than others.

The Stakeholders of Sustainability

These are the people and organisations that define the prevailing view of which companies are serious and credible, and which are reckless and incredible when it comes to taking on the planetary disaster we are all facing. Of course there are nuances of opinion, but in general there is consensus on the fact, for example, that Unilever is trying to lead on sustainable consumption, that Nestlé is pioneering new approaches on water, deforestation and rural development, that Sainsbury’s and M&S have serious plans to lead the retail sector, and that Shell, Trafigura, Glencore and Yum Brands will be lodging in the ethical and environmental doghouse for the foreseeable future.

This general view is effectively a collective consciousness drawn from countless opinion-forming subgroups. In no particular order, these include government, the SRI community, campaigning NGOS, solution-providing NGOs such as certification bodies, public/private partnerships, academia, employees, trade associations, traditional media, social media, key individual opinion leaders, corporate sustainability leaders, suppliers, rankings systems, advisory consultancies and, of course, customers, be they business or end consumers.

Together, these categories form the fabric of the canvas on which corporations must paint their version of environmentalism and ethics. They represent thousands of individuals, if not hundreds of thousands. Some matter more than others, and this varies considerably from one country to the next.

Stakeholder Engagement: We're Constantly Talking [Privately]

The key point to remember is that the sustainable business community (and it really is a community) is constantly talking to itself, forming judgments about your business or sector.

Retailers hate nothing more than a surprise attack from a campaigning NGO alleging their supply chains are responsible for dead orangutans, the slaughter of turtles or the destruction of the Amazon. The retail sector is, therefore, in constant dialogue with campaigning groups. Media depend on campaigners to give them good stories. Campaigners depend on good policy thinking to make their case, from think thanks and academic institutions.

Increasingly, the scientific community is finding its proper voice in these debates. Twitter is awash with CSR and green advocates, providing the perfect channel for widespread dissemination of good or bad news, not least through the medium of blogs such as this one.

Regulators, as ever caught in the headlights, try to keep up and frame policy around what others have already achieved as they sat and watched. Sometimes they become pivotal, but far too rarely. All these audiences are influencing each other, and building up a collective view about priority issues, who is leading, who is following the pack, and who is lagging far behind.

It is ignorance about all this that leads companies into woefully naïve territory.

Shell's PR Strategy: Disaster in the Making?

Thus, Shell thinks it is credible to promote green credentials on, of all things, climate change, whilst in the middle of a disastrous Arctic drilling joyride that is viewed by the kinder elements of the sustainability community as folly, and by its harsher members as morally criminal. Shell’s PR idiocy is so pronounced it regards filing pre-emptive law suits against NGOs as an intelligent idea (red rag to a bull is the reality), and instead of fessing up to the fact that its Arctic safety strategy is progressively unraveling, Shell spends time and resources making videos on YouTube boasting about how many Facebook friends the company has managed to amass in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It is almost comic to watch.

Not content with that, Shell’s brand is now so toxic that even Waitrose, a generally responsible small U.K. retailer, was dragged into a social media fuelled boycott campaign in December 2012 over a commercial tie-up with Shell that, amongst other things, rewarded its supermarket shoppers with Shell fuel vouchers. It took just two weeks for Waitrose to distance itself from its bigger, uglier corporate partner.

Just a few short years ago, Shell was respected for its Foundation, a smart climate change think tank and its commitments on renewables. Now, the company is unable to call upon any serious environmental advocates to fight its case, because it is not taking their advice. This prevailing wind against Shell will blow as hard and long as the Arctic winter. And it will take years to change direction. 

On the more positive side, some companies, like Puma and Interserve, manage to emerge fast on the sustainability scene.

Reputation in Sustainability: Easily Lost, Easily Gained

There is nothing like major innovation to get the theatre listening and applauding. Sustainability reputation is fast lost, but can be gained quickly too. The reality is that those of us who work in this global movement need good examples to encourage more companies to take the agenda seriously. We have all but given up on government, so it is to business that we turn for leadership and bold, ambitious planning.

More and more, there are brave CEOs and smart companies that are willing to lead the charge. The bolder the communication, the louder we cheer. Provided, of course, there is a solid underbelly of commitment, progress and impact.

Now I see you commodity traders, you price-obsessed discount chains, you tax-avoiding websites and yes, you, at the back – the privately-held logging firm far away from us Western hemisphere liberals. You may think that your sector or brand is immune from this ‘chatter.’

But someone, somewhere, is watching you.

They may be developing a new ranking of ethics or sustainability for your sector. You may find yourself near the top. If you’ve never engaged on these issues more likely you’re at the bottom. If your customer base is other businesses rather than direct consumers, then be aware that those customers are likely to be much closer to emerging trends and debates than you are.

It would be smart to go to them with solutions, not become their problem supplier. The less you engage with this vast landscape, the harder it will be to persuade people your business is a sustainability champion. The more you engage, the better decisions the your company will make, and the more independent voices will praise those decisions.

The old adage holds true: If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

_________________________

About the Author:

Brendan May's [@bmay] blog draws on his new book How to Make Your Company a Recognised Sustainability Champion, published by Dō Sustainability in December 2012. The book is part of a new series of short sustainable business ebooks by experts for professionals.

Brendan May is Founder of the Robertsbridge Group, a global consultancy formed by some of the U.K.’s leading sustainability thinkers. He is on Twitter @bmay & @robertsbridge.

CSRwire Discount: For 15% off the RRP of any DōShort title, use code CSR15. Currencies will be converted, and orders can be fulfilled immediately, anywhere in the world.

Subscriptions: You can also get access to the entire DōShorts collection via individual or corporate subscription. Read more about subscriptions here.

Queries? If you would like to contact Brendan May or find out more about the DōShorts series, email [email protected] or visit www.dosustainability.com.

We usually talk about the sharing economy on three levels – the company, the sector and the “change.” On the company level, we generally analyze specific companies like Airbnb or Zipcar and how they disrupt the markets they operate within. On the sector level, we look into evaluations of the size and potential growth of the sharing sector. The “change” level includes mostly qualitative observations on the extent to which the sharing economy can revolutionize our lifestyle and change the business landscape.

Today, I’d like to focus on a fourth level - the economic system. On this level, we try to evaluate not just the impact of one successful company or another, or how much the sector can grow, but the overall impact of the sharing economy on two important economic issues – consumption and growth. More specifically, we will try to figure out if the sharing economy can increase economic growth while lowering consumption, which for many seems to be a win-win outcome. On a following piece we’ll check if this outcome is actually what we should be looking for.

My first instinct when thinking about the impact of the sharing economy on consumption is that sharing reduces consumption. After all, we’re talking about better usage of underutilized resources like swapping clothes we don’t use anymore, carpooling, using a neighbor’s car, renting a room in someone’s house for the weekend, bartering, bike sharing, and so on. All of these activities seem to reduce our consumption, right?

Before answering the question, let’s make sure we know what we’re looking at. In terms of economic accounting, we refer here to household consumption expenditure as measured for calculating the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), i.e. “the market value of all goods and services, including durable products (such as cars, washing machines, and home computers), purchased by households.”

Some of the sharing activities mentioned above either have zero market value (swapping clothes or bartering for example) or a lower market value comparing to the ‘business as usual’ option – for example, renting a bike once in a while instead of buying one.

Yet, in some sharing activities the outcome might be completely different. Take, for example, Airbnb. The company reported last year that its contribution to San Francisco’s economic activity is estimated at $56 million a year. Given that an Airbnb user spends more than a hotel guest ($1,100 vs. $840 respectively) and that 14 percent of the users said they would not have visited the city if not for Airbnb, we can say that in this case, a sharing activity increased the total consumption expenditure of households.

There are also some cases where the relationship between sharing and consumption gets more complicated. Take peer-to-peer car sharing. You might expect that this sort of activity would reduce the need of families to buy a second car, which might still be true on the demand side, but not so much on the supply side. Shelby Clark of RelayRides told Tim O’Reilly that people are buying a second car just for sharing. Now, it’s not clear if the net impact here is positive or negative (i.e. whether households buy in total more or fewer second cars as a result of car sharing), but it goes to show you the complexity in the relationship between sharing and consumption.

In addition, let’s not forget that the money saved by people using the sharing economy also might go to consumption…of other stuff. Zipcar asked people in a survey what they would mostly spend the $6,000 a year they could save by not owning a car on. Interestingly, only 20-30 percent would go, according to the responders, toward spending money on things like travel and buying a house, while the rest would go to savings (40-50 percent) and paying debts.

So, can we argue that the sharing economy reduces consumption? My guesstimation is that the answer is somewhat yes on a personal level, although given the examples above the total net impact of the sharing economy on consumption might be smaller than we tend to think.

In any event, those who fear (or hope) that the sharing economy would hurt growth shouldn’t be too worried (or hopeful). There seem to be three good reasons why even though the sharing economy can reduce consumption on the personal level, it will still enhance growth.

First, this is an innovative space and if we can learn from similar innovative sectors (open-source software for example), there’s a good chance to see a real economic value created by the sharing economy. Second, there’s the local multiplier effect that helps generate more economic activity from the hundreds of dollars a month people make for renting their car on Wheelz or $50-$100 a month others make from renting their bike on Liquid. Last, but not least, even if each of us consume a little bit less due to the sharing economy, there will be more of us and in this kind of contests scale usually wins, so aggregate consumption will rise and hence we’ll see more growth in the GDP.

So should we be happy because it seems like the sharing economy can boost the economy while reducing consumption to some degree on a personal level? Isn’t it the win-win strategy we were looking for? It is if you believe growth is key to prosperity. It isn’t if you believe growth is mistakenly synonymous with well-being. Can the sharing economy become a good fit for the latter and not just the former? In the next piece, we’ll try to figure it out.

[Image credit: Liquid]

Raz Godelnik is the co-founder of Eco-Libris and an adjunct faculty at the University of Delaware’s Business School, CUNY SPS and the Parsons The New School for Design, teaching courses in green business, sustainable design and new product development. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

By Julie Malone

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and National Geographic provides a new video, “Make Each Choice Count,” based on water usage in textile production. The growth, manufacturing, transporting, and washing of cotton uses huge amounts of water.

For example, it takes about 2,700 liters of water to make just one t-shirt , which is enough water for one person to drink for 900 days. And, let’s not forget the wear and tear on the t-shirt once purchased. One load of washing uses 40 gallons of water and five times more energy to dry it. How often do you wash that t-shirt: once a week or month? Fortunately, there are ways to help the problem, skip the drying and ironing process and hang your t-shirt to air dry. You might save 1/3 of your t-shirt’s carbon footprint. The choices we make today affect the future needs of others.

Our society believes there is plenty of consumable water to go around for everyone. Not really. Our planet’s water is 97 percent salty and two percent snow and ice, which leaves less than one percent that we can access. However, 70 percent of that one percent is used to grow crops. Cotton is a very thirsty crop. Can you imagine how many t-shirts are in our city, towns, state, country, globally, and on this planet?

Waterfootprint.org, a learning platform for connecting diverse communities interested in sustainability, equitability and efficiency of water use, mentions that cotton farming is the largest consumer of water in the apparel supply chain, and is used in 40 percent of all clothing worldwide.

Fortunately, there is good news from the industry. Companies are making great strides in reducing their water footprint for cotton. Major textile brands are looking towards more eco-friendly cotton production. WWF works with farmers and the businesses that buy their crops to develop sustainable farming methods. This takes the strain off water supplies, not just for cotton, but for other “thirsty crops” like sugar cane and rice.

Farmers in Pakistan and India, as well as CEOs in the United States and South Africa, are being helped by the WWF to assist people to use water more responsibly. With WWF’s support, the Better Cotton Initiative is working with farmers to grow cotton with less water. The Better Cotton Initiative is an intense cooperation consisting of a multi-stakeholder group of organizations that work together to find better, more sustainable way of growing cotton to introduce to the public.

In Pakistan, the Initiative has worked with 75,000 farmers who, as a result, have reduced their water use by 39 percent and increased their income by 11 percent. They also used 47 percent less pesticide and 39 percent less chemical fertilizer. By using less pesticides and chemical fertilizer in the United States, the rivers are less likely to transport pollutants to The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, a large region of water that is very low in oxygen, and therefore can't support life. That’s good for companies, good for other communities downstream, good for the fish, birds and other creatures that depend on rivers and wetlands, and good for people like you who care about where your t-shirts come from. The textile industry can bring a better product to the customer, however, it is up to the customer to play their part in water efficiency also.

The Dead Zone's website shows an animation of how the above chemicals, and water from farms, rivers, streams, feed lots, and city streets from 40 percent of the U.S. runs down the Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Red, and Missouri Rivers, where the water all collects in the Mississippi River and down to the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico. The result: bottom-dwellers such as snails, worms, starfish, and crabs can't escape the dead zone's oxygen poor water - so they die. Fish and shrimp swim out of the area, which could cause shrimp supply to drop and seafood prices to rise.

Julie Malone, based in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, is an environmental researcher. She is graduate student at the University of Denver and has a M.A.S. degree in Environmental Policy and Management and is working on her M.S. in Legal Administration. Her academic work can be found on knowourplanet.com.

Image credit: Unsplash

Bribery and corruption used to be seen as part of the reality of doing business in certain parts of the world. But, writes Leo Martin, business is leading the international charge for change
According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, two thirds of the 176 countries and territories it ranked have scores that suggest a serious corruption problem in their public sector. This presents a real problem for global businesses, with many often forced to work with governments whose contracting, public tendering and financing are far from transparent or accountable.

Against this background, it is not surprising that stories of corruption still dominate the business pages or feature in the history of many corporations. It has long been argued that in certain parts of the world, this is how business is done. And from the cases we read about, it appears that many companies went along with this, or turned a blind eye, at least until they got caught.

Corrupt activity is usually carried out indirectly through third parties, intermediaries or agents. But though this may secure a contract, it also makes doing business more costly. The UN estimates that corruption costs the global economy $1tn a year and adds up to 25% to the cost of procurement.

What concerned Transparency International, in particular, was that given the recent focus on tackling bribery, very few countries have done much to reduce corruption – in direct contrast to the business community. But this is changing.

In the UK, for example, since the Bribery Bill first appeared in the Queen’s Speech in 2009, corruption has risen up the corporate agenda. Where the UK was once criticised for lagging behind the world on anti-corruption legislation, its Bribery Act is now seen as among the most rigorous. There are parallel processes going on elsewhere. As a consequence, many companies listed in the UK and on the major North American and European exchanges are at the forefront of tackling corrupt behaviour.

So what are the best businesses doing? Crucially and, perhaps, most importantly, businesses are beginning to take this seriously. Anti-corruption compliance is fast becoming the latest ‘must-have’ function, and not just in those sectors subject to industry-specific legislation, such as pharmaceuticals or financial services. These newly-formed compliance teams are putting systems in place to ensure their organisations comply with anti-bribery legislation and are spending money to check they actually work.

In the best cases, compliance and ethics teams are working to set the right spirit and tone, developing systems and processes that govern behaviour and go beyond box-ticking exercises that simply aim to meet regulatory requirements. Tick-box compliance was prevalent in the financial services sector, resulting in damaging behaviour and heavy fines. Such an approach should be avoided at all costs in a rigorous anti-corruption programme.

In many companies, developing robust anti-corruption measures begins with a high-level review, comprising a risk assessment for senior management. This includes a careful appraisal of the geographical areas where the company operates and the likely exposure to corruption; a review of all suppliers, agents, joint-venture partners and other third parties; an assessment of staff, customers and business areas most at risk from bribery or internal fraud; and an examination of relationships with public officials and due diligence of major capital projects or new ventures.

Such an exercise should provide companies with an anti-corruption roadmap showing gaps in protection and identifying any procedures that would be deemed inadequate. It also informs policy-making and the development of effective and targeted training programmes.

Successful anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) programmes are based on the six key principles outlined in the Guidelines on Adequate Procedures, published by the Ministry of Justice, enabling companies to demonstrate:

• top-level commitment to ABC policies and a zero tolerance of bribery and corruption;
• effective communication of and training in the company’s ABC programme;
• regular risk assessments of the business, markets, countries and sectors where the company operates;
• due diligence on all high risk areas, individuals and organisations. A focus on the highest risk transactions and intermediaries is key, including sales agents and anyone helping the company enter a market or obtain permits and licences of any sort;
• rigorous ABC controls in operation in all key business functions and
• ongoing monitoring, internal and external, to check ABC compliance.

Some companies have made significant steps towards these goals but, for many, the business landscape, particularly in certain parts of the world, is still challenging.

Assessing risk and monitoring conduct in the supply chain is the most difficult area, yet is possibly the area most vulnerable to corruption. In 2011, every US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act/Department of Justice prosecution involved corrupt activities in the supply chain. This clearly shows the need, not just for due diligence checks, but for monitoring and establishment of a zero tolerance policy on corrupt practices across the organisation.

Some companies are attempting to perform due diligence on tens of thousands of suppliers; others are unsure where to begin and have no system in place. Having some type of ‘decision tree’ to judge where due diligence is needed is essential.

Decision trees enable businesses to conduct the appropriate checks on the right suppliers. In the majority of cases, service suppliers have more opportunity to bribe on an organisation’s behalf than suppliers of goods. Companies are, therefore, having to categorise suppliers according to risk by examining the service they provide and the opportunity for corruption.

Once categorised, appropriate due diligence is conducted in the form of questionnaires, audits, training, signed agreements and investigative research, as appropriate.
This should be carried out on new and existing suppliers, and always before a contract is awarded. This can be most challenging when it comes to existing suppliers and, although risk assessments should still be carried out, penalties for terminating contracts must be considered alongside possible risk and reputational damage.

Third parties, intermediaries, agents and joint venture partners are increasingly being checked in the same way. Often, when managing these relationships, differences in business conduct and culture are most acutely felt, but companies can and should put systems in place to reduce risk and ensure adequate procedures have been set up.

Where suppliers are identified by the decision tree as ‘high risk’, the company should:

• ask to see its anti-corruption policy or statement
• introduce anti-corruption terms and conditions into the contract
• ask the organisation to sign an anti-corruption commitment
• check its past record on corruption
• check its relationships with government officials
• carry out anti-corruption training if necessary
• establish ownership of the intermediary and look out for conflicts of interest
• check its policy on gifts and hospitality and, where none exists, ask for them to commit to yours
• check for statements on facilitation payments and communicate the company’s own policy on such payments.

In addition to due diligence, conflicts of interest, gifts, hospitality and facilitation payments are also emerging as challenging issues.

Facilitation payments are a major challenge for many organisations working in emerging markets and in sectors that require permits and licences to operate. Best practice and, nowadays, laws demand a zero tolerance approach. Some do successfully enforce this, despite working in challenging countries. But to succeed, companies must unequivocally back all staff who resist requests for payment.

It is important that facilitation payments are addressed explicitly in the company’s code of conduct, ideally supported by an anti-corruption statement of principle from high-risk third parties, suppliers, agents, intermediaries and joint venture partners. Many companies are tightening controls in this area but feel they are working in isolation, potentially penalised for failure without government or embassy-level support in urging countries to act themselves.  

Gifts, entertainment and conflicts of interest require a more sensitive approach. With respect to gifts and entertainment, many companies are treading a path between what complies with company policy and the culturally-defined expectations in certain parts of the world.

Many companies are wary of corporate imperialism but, to comply with adequate procedures, they should communicate a clear gifts and hospitality policy, and undertake regular monitoring to ensure they are not being put at risk. The UK case between Sainsburys’ and Greenvale shows that gifts are unlikely to be the target of a corruption investigation in and of themselves, but can be very compelling evidence in showing that a relationship has been corrupted.

Rigorous monitoring of potential conflicts of interest is also essential and, again, the best companies have systems in place. However, conflicts must be fully explained to staff. All too often, employees are scared to declare a conflict because they are unsure about how it might be treated. Staff should be encouraged to be transparent and it should be made clear that the conflict itself is not the problem, but rather the actions taken to manage it (or not).

Many companies are also getting themselves into ridiculous knots over political connections. The key thing is to focus on connections that are material, that might actually influence a public decision affecting the company, and to ignore the rest. Again, even this type of conflict is usually easy to manage, as long as it is declared.

From the work GoodCorporation does in this area – conducting reviews, audits and training for leading international companies – we know that ABC compliance is becoming increasingly widespread and far reaching. Supply chain and procurement risks are also being monitored more meticulously. Some companies are taking extreme action to protect their businesses, severing relationships with third parties, agents and suppliers suspected of corruption – and even pulling out of countries where they fear they cannot operate without engaging in corrupt practices.

Anti-corruption has never been higher on the corporate agenda and there are signs that business can effect change. Corporates should not be left to fight this battle alone – more inter-governmental action would be in everyone’s interest. In the meantime, the business world is leading the charge.

Leo Martin is director and co-founder of GoodCorporation

Submitted by Guest Contributor

Sustainability is no longer a fleeting trend. It is becoming a standard practice of companies both large and small, across multiple industries here in the United States and around the world. The health care sector is no different. While the safety and efficacy of health and personal care products will always be paramount, people today are increasingly interested in the sustainability of the products they purchase.

This series is about EARTHWARDS^®, a Johnson & Johnson program designed to promote greener product development throughout the enterprise. You will hear from employees at Johnson & Johnson and its Family of Companies, including some of the sustainability advocates who helped build and evolve the program over the years; brand managers and R&D leaders who collaborate to design greener products; and external corporate social responsibility (CSR) experts who will provide their own unique perspectives on sustainable product development at Johnson & Johnson, including independent reporting by CSRwire's Editorial Director Aman Singh.

In part one, Keith Sutter, Senior Product Director of Sustainable Brand Marketing, introduces us to the Earthwards^® process and gives us a peek into the origins of the program.

_________________________________

Every product has a footprint, from the raw materials sourced and energy and water used during production, to the impacts of packaging, distribution and disposal. In fact, the only way to really eliminate environmental impacts would be to stop making and using products altogether. But chances are we will continue to use products – whether it’s to shampoo and condition our hair, place a bandage on a scraped knee, take medicine when we aren’t well, or be healed with the help of a surgical device.

Every company is faced with this balancing act of making products to meet consumer needs but also addressing inherent impacts of their products. So, what if we change the way products are made so that they have less of an environmental impact?

It was this thinking that led my colleagues to introduce the Earthwards process at Johnson & Johnson, which was designed to foster product stewardship and sustainable product innovation throughout the enterprise, including 250 operating companies across our Consumer Products, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices & Diagnostics sectors. We’ve made strides since the program launched in 2009, and are proud to be providing our customers more sustainable products using our robust product stewardship effort that has been externally-validated.

Earthwards^®: The Beginning

At Johnson & Johnson, our highest priority is the health of people and the planet. This is why we established Healthy Future 2015, our sustainability roadmap for the future that includes enterprise-wide goals to reduce our environmental impacts. We’ve had specific sustainability goals in place since the early 1990s, but our commitment to the environment dates back to our origins and our Credo:

We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources.

One way we strive to reduce our environmental impact is by improving the sustainable design of our products. Our first venture into greener product design was in the late '90s, when we launched a Design for the Environment program.

We had some early successes, such as eliminating more than 3,000 tons of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from our packaging from 2005-2010, but we were convinced we could go further with this and really challenge ourselves. We also recognized the realities of today’s competitive marketplace, in which sustainability can be a tie-breaker, a differentiator, or a reason to believe.

We wanted to help our product development teams better understand how lifecycle thinking can result in greener products with science-based claims that help our marketing colleagues better tell our sustainability story.

In 2009, we worked with Five Winds International, a product stewardship and sustainability consultancy, to develop the Earthwards process. We created a Board of Directors, and recruited product developers and brand marketers, as well as external subject matter experts from organizations such as Practice Greenhealth and World Wildlife Fund.

To keep our process state of the art, the following year, we asked a group of product sustainability experts from government, academia, business and the NGO community to review the Earthwards process and suggest improvements to our approach. As a result, we further integrated the Earthwards process across Johnson & Johnson companies by setting a 2015 Healthy Future goal of 60 Earthwards-recognized products and integration of the process into our company wide Environment, Health and Safety standards.

The Earthwards Process & Scorecard

Today, the Earthwards process is helping our product development teams identify and address a product’s biggest environmental impacts. We use lifecycle thinking to better understand the areas of greatest impact and guide how we should focus our efforts. In most cases, the greatest impacts associated with our products result from the customer use phase and end-of-life disposal, but depending on the product, impacts related to packaging, raw materials, distribution and waste can also be significant.

To be considered for Earthwards recognition, product teams use our proprietary scorecard to take a product through a four-step process:

1. Satisfy prerequisites. Product teams ask a series of questions to gauge their general understanding of the product. What materials are used in this product? Where do the materials come from? What happens to a product after it’s used?
2. Undergo screening. The product undergoes a lifecycle screening to examine impacts and quantify improvements made, and then it’s evaluated against 12 specific goals that fall into seven categories: materials used, packaging, energy reduction, waste reduction, water reduction, positive social impact or benefit, and product innovation.
3. Identify improvements. A product must demonstrate more than a 10 percent improvement in at least three of the 12 goal areas. [Five of the seven Earthwards categories have two goal areas, so it is possible for a product to achieve recognition by showing improvements in only two categories.]
4. Submit for review. Teams then submit the scorecard and improvement results to the Earthwards Board for review.

Earthwards: Looking Ahead

As we look ahead to the next phase of Earthwards, we see opportunities to continue to improve the suite of tools and resources we created for the product development and marketing teams. We’ve begun by upgrading the scorecard functionality and introducing an online scorecard to replace the spreadsheet-based tool we previously used. This will help minimize errors and ensure the availability of data and calculations.

We also developed a “claims calculator” to help translate the reductions and improvements into meaningful and relevant information for our marketing teams and customers.

It has been an exciting few years for the Earthwards team, but there’s so much more to be done around our sustainable product development. While we’re proud of how far we’ve come, this progress is just one step in our sustainability journey toward our Healthy Future goal of developing 60 Earthwards recognized products by 2015. We are up for the challenge!

Next: Aman Singh reports from a front row seat to sustainability in action at J&J

About the Author:

As Senior Product Director for Sustainable Brand Marketing at Johnson & Johnson, Keith leads Johnson & Johnson's 250+ operating companies in developing sustainable business and marketing strategies. Through the Earthwards process, Keith translates the value of Johnson & Johnson's extensive product stewardship and environmental successes to the company's trade customers and consumers.

One of the benefits of living in a large city like New York is the power of choice – especially when it comes to cuisine. Just about every type of ethnic food can be found here, from Ethiopian to El Salvadorian, from gluten-free to nut free, from halal to kosher.

But sometimes there’s nothing better than enjoying a home-cooked meal in your own dining room, especially if you get to pick the menu for the night (and the cook), and don’t have to prepare it, schlep it, or clean up your kitchen.

That’s the idea behind Mealku.com, an unusual food-sharing cooperative started by Ted D’Cruz-Young. Innovation and simplicity were the trademarks with which he launched his New York-based marketing enterprise Ideocracy, and they are evident in his newest creation as well.

“Really simply," says D’Cruz-Young, it’s “for people to share more, waste less (and) eat better.

“Meal sharing… has existed since the beginning of time. All we are doing is making it easier.”

According to its website, Mealku bills itself as “the first and only Real Food Network: The Best Way to Eat.” It caters to those who can appreciate the art that goes into a thoughtfully-prepared meal without the fuss, the bother and the exorbitant price tag of sitting in someone else’s four-star dining room. It simplifies the process of meal sharing. It also provides a venue for cooks to share their best creations with individuals who appreciate good food.

And simplicity is also at the heart of Mealku’s operation. Meals are posted on the site by approved homecooks according to the day and time that they will be ready. Other members within their city or regional area can then visit the site and “claim” the dishes for that day. Once claimed, a delivery person acts as the liaison by picking up and delivering the dish to the recipient (transport dishes and carriers are provided by the cooperative). The dish can either be delivered to a specified destination (your house or office for example), or picked up at a prearranged Mealku hub location.

Mealku’s premise works on the concept of community sharing, not only in the active exchange of meals, but in how it regards member participation. While it does conduct pre-screens of its homecooks and participants do have to register to become members, there is a certain amount of responsibility placed on participants to make thoughtful choices and to live by the cooperative’s maxim of respectful conduct. As Mealku’s FAQ succinctly states, “There is nowhere on Mealku for bad cooks to hide. You’ve checked the cooks' most recent reviews. You’ve FoodPal’d people who have ordered from the cook. You’re ordering because another Mealku member has told you that the food is amazing.” Participants are encouraged to review the meals, and to remember that Mealku is first and foremost a “tight community” of like-minded people.

At the present time, membership costs $10 per month, which provides you with a beginning credit with which to purchase food. Members can earn more credit (calculated as “ku”) by cooking, and reviewing meals online, or through other activities such as hosting welcome visits and introducing new members to the cooperative. The monthly “payment” of ku encourages members to take on participatory functions that feed back into the group’s success and growth.

Ask D’Cruz-Young why he feels that New Yorkers – and other urbanites for that matter -  would be interested in the services of an online meal-sharing cooperative, and he’s just as succinct.

“Exhaustion,” he says. “We have created a system where we have ever-increasing quantities of stuff that we don’t need, and … there are ever-decreasing rewards for having that stuff. We have a generational break going on … We have over-saturated the population (and) society with stuff, and therefore we can’t value any of it.”

The end result, he says is a craving for a simpler, more intimate exchange.

“I value something more if I share it,” says D’Cruz-Young. “I value something more that is shared with me, and belongs to someone (else). We are in a fundamental shift.”

Once a local group is established, it is up to the group to decide what kinds of foods it can, and wants to provide. Mealku provides a template of choices such as gluten free, vegetarian, vegan, kosher, halal, etc. It’s also up to the community to define the interpretations of those categories. For example, cooks who check off kosher will be able to indicate the extent of stringency of the rating. It’s also up to the person ordering to ask questions, if necessary.

At the present time, Mealku is only in New York City. But there are plans to expand the cooperative to other cities, and D’Cruz-Young feels confident that there will be as enthusiastic a response in other cities as there has been in New York.

“We will be in every major city across the country very fast,” says D’Cruz-Young.  He points out that the beauty of Mealku is its adaptability as a sharing economy cooperative. Cuisine isn’t just limited to the dining room or a restaurant; sharing can happen anywhere.

“We’re also in schools, we’re also in apartment buildings …Wherever there are people, and they are eating, we can be there.”

Photo courtesy of  KayOne73; Mealku logo courtesy of Mealku.

By Sandjar Kozubaev 

Once in a lifetime

Earlier last year, I travelled to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, which is my hometown. My trips home are usually full of emotion because they happen so rarely, but this time was truly special. My baby sister was getting married. Needless to say, my whole stay was an emotional rollercoaster: tears, laughs, reunions and even a random food poisoning to top it off.

Weddings are a special occasion in any culture but in traditional societies, they are even more special. In many ways, they are the cornerstone of culture, rich with rituals, stories and artifacts. A wedding is also a carefully orchestrated multi-day event. In a developing country, it would seem that it should be a  logistical nightmare to put together, but it isn't. Almost every ritual has been performed for centuries so at every wedding, behind the apparent chaos there is a well-established system of relationships, transactions and mechanisms. On the surface it looks spontaneous, but behind the scenes it's like clockwork. After it was all over, I started to wonder if we can learn something about market mechanisms from traditional communities. Weddings might be the best place to look for insights.

A financial market without a bank

I won't go into the details of a traditional Uzbek wedding, but one of the main challenges of a wedding is the financial resources it takes to marry off children, which traditionally has been the parents' responsibility. Relative to the disposable income of any family, the cost of a wedding is prohibitive. Many parents start saving up for the special day as soon as the child is born, especially if it's a girl. In a developed economy, you have some options. You can save up more cash by reducing your consumption or you can take a loan from a bank. But these options are usually not available in the developing world. Moreover, people tend to get married earlier so they are not at their peak level of productivity to offer any financial help to the parents. This is where the community steps in.

Essentially, the community around the family that hosts the wedding acts like a local bank. According to the tradition, family members and friends bring monetary gifts to the head of the household who holds the wedding. It's like any other wedding gift except that both parties know that it has “strings” attached. Both parties fully expect that this financial gift needs to be returned when it's the gift giver's turn to host a wedding. At that time, the gift is returned fully and in some cases with additional "interest" as a sign of appreciation and respect for the original gift. The system is extremely simple; there are no contracts, no promises and relatively small risks. It is self-sustaining, and this “market” continues to function without any outside regulation. Economic necessity created a financial service that could hardly exist in a classic market setting. In fact, one could argue that this is the purest form of a market.

Food for rent

Another beautiful tradition in Uzbek culture is the morning palov (aka pilaf, plov, osh), which is a rice dish that is served on special occasions. It is simply delicious! The occasion for a palov can be anything from a new birth, wedding, death, or any other culturally significant event. The host of the household invites his friends and family to celebrate the occasion with a meal and a prayer in the morning. A typical palov function hosts 200 to 300 people although size can vary. Again, the logistics of hosting such a function is quite challenging. There are restaurants that specialize exclusively in such events.

I want to explain how tables are set at these events, because it’s important in this context. Instead of serving appetizers, meals and deserts in sequence like it's done in the West, everything is set on the table at once. The more food on the table the better. The only food that's not served right away is the actual palov. It's an enormous amount of food for the host to purchase and potentially waste.

What used to happen is that the hosts would buy the provisions and collect the leftovers at the end of the event. It works well with non-perishable foods like dried fruit or candies, but fresh fruits and vegetables would often be wasted because there was just too much. It becomes even more difficult in the winter when fruits command a premium price. These conditions set a stage for a service that I have not seen before at these events - fruits and snacks for rent. It works exactly like it sounds. You rent the fruits and snacks for 3-4 hours and at a specific price; plus you pay a fee for any food that ends up being consumed during the function. All food is collected at the end of the function, everything is counted and to determine the final fee. It's an extremely efficient model that saves money both for the host and provides an extra revenue source for the vendor who will later sell the fruits on the market.

Market design at work

You may have heard of the work of Lloyd Shapley, an economist at UCLA, and Al Roth, of Harvard University. Their pioneering work in market design recently earned them a Nobel Prize in economics. Here is an excellent piece by Joshua Gans explaining the nature of this work. Roth and Shapley's research shows how one can apply simple principles to match participants in markets where it's very difficult to do (e.g. singles looking to get married) or where price mechanisms cannot be used for various reasons. This is called market design and it works based on the following four principles:

• Market thickness - lots of buyers and sellers



• Lack of congestion - transaction speed is efficient relative to its volume (no long waits)


• Market safety - everyone has an incentive to play a fair game


• Avoidance of “repugnance” - non-interference of other social and moral values that disrupt the functioning of the market

What the economists have shown is that if you can meet those four principles, you can match market participants even in the most complex situations. It's a brilliant concept and it works in real life. No wonder it caught the attention of the Nobel Prize committee.

Thinking back to the market examples from my sister's wedding, I wonder if traditional societies can help us apply market design principles more effectively. Can we leverage traditional institutions and relationships to design better services? Creating new institutions might be needed in completely new markets, say like organ transplantation. However, it may be easier to design new services within existing social structures, especially when we can use technology. What if we could have a hyper-local banking system that was completely peer-to-peer? What if we could significantly reduce our consumption of resources if we shared more often? Traditional communities develop elegant solutions out of necessity. People rely on each other because it's their best option. We can use the same approach to design more resilient markets and communities. After all, we have the longevity of culture, and the scalability of technology on our side.

* * *

Sandjar Kozubaev is an economist and design strategist at InReality, a strategy, design and solutions management firm based in Atlanta, GA. He consults clients on designing meaningful customer experiences and building lasting business models. He is also the author of Layered Thinker, a visual blog on critical thinking and strategic foresight. Follow Sandjar on Twitter. 

The auto industry is one of the most innovative industries worldwide. At the same time, there’s a good chance you’re driving a fossil fuel-powered car just like your grandfather did decades ago. There are many reasons for this seeming contradiction, but the fact is that the auto industry wants to change this reality and is constantly looking for alternatives that are cleaner, cheaper and eventually better, from electrification to biofuels. The latest attempt concerns maybe the most available resource of all – air.

The French car manufacturer Peugeot Citroen has just announcet that it is working on a new kind of hybrid car that uses a conventional internal combustion engine and compressed air for motive power. “Intended for smaller B- and C-segment vehicles with output of up to 110 horsepower, it's designed to operate in three modes: internal combustion, compressed air only or a combination of the two,” Kbb.com reported.

The idea of using compressed air to power cars is anything but new, and already in 19^th century you had mine locomotives and trams in some cities using compressed air. The way compressed-air engines work hasn’t changed much since then, explains Michael Coren on Co.Exist, “Fresh air is pumped into a chamber under high pressure, and then released into 'combustion' chambers where the air forces down pistons and turns the wheels.”

So why didn’t it work? After all, compressed air seems to have many advantages, from low price to zero tailpipe emissions (although not everyone seem to agree it’s as clean an option as it appears). Apparently, compressed air has a relatively low energy density and therefore it’s unlikely to provide enough range or speed to appeal to the masses. “Compressed air does not contain much energy–that’s the killer,” Larry Rinek, senior research analyst for automotive technologies at consultancy Frost & Sullivan told MIT Technology Review. “This is more a nice garage project for a Popular Science subscriber.”

Some companies, including Toyota, MDI and Tata begged to differ and tried to develop improved models, but without much success. Now Peugeot is giving it a shot with its new "Hybrid Air" concept that it believes to be somewhat different and better. The planned car's main source of power remains an internal combustion engine powered by gasoline, explains Antony Ingram on Green Car Reports. “But instead of using batteries to supply additional power, or zero-emissions driving when needed,” he adds, “the concept instead uses a compressed air tank mounted in the central transmission tunnel to turn a hydraulic motor.”

When you run this car on highways, it will use the internal combustion engine alone. In cities the engine allows up to 80 percent driving on compressed air with an impressive fuel economy of 81 miles per gallon and only emits just 110 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. The combined economy can reach up to 117 mpg. "This breakthrough technology ... represents a key step towards the two litre per hundred kilometre car by 2020," Peugeot Citroen chief executive Philippe Varin said at a press conference unveiling a series of new technologies.

The new system is intended for smaller and midsized cars and one of its advantages is that it requires only minimal redesign work from Peugeot on a conventional platform like the Citroen C3 or Peugeot 208. Other important advantages include a 45 percent savings in relative fuel usage and up to a 90 percent increase in range compared to a similar vehicle with only an internal combustion engine. Peugeot didn’t say anything about the price yet but it does make sense that the company will also be able to offer a competitive price given the lack of need of an expensive battery pack.

Even if we assume that Peugeot successfully manages to overcome the engineering challenges that prevented compressed-air cars from becoming a serious alternative over the years, the main question is whether consumers will be likely to accept it. I believe that it does have a chance, although probably more in Asia and Europe than in North America given that this system is not a good fit for big cars.

Eventually it all comes down to price and convenience. If these cars manage to combine the advantages of a hybrid car (infrastructure and range are not an issue), the impressive fuel economy of electric cars and significant cost savings, then compressed air might be the next big thing in the auto industry.

Still, before we start daydreaming about how air will be our savior when it comes to private transportation, let’s not forget that we probably need couple of more breakthroughs before we see it becoming the fuel of choice. Until then, we’ll probably keep driving just like grandpa.

[Image credit: PSA Peugeot Citroen]

Raz Godelnik is the co-founder of Eco-Libris and an adjunct faculty at the University of Delaware’s Business School, CUNY SPS and Parsons The New School for Design, teaching courses in green business, sustainable design and new product development. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

Do you need to hop a private jet to Las Vegas, stay in someone’s penthouse crib and borrow that perfect Gucci bag for the weekend? The rise of the sharing economy has spread far beyond AirBnB and ThredUp. Luxury goods and services have emerged within the collaborative consumption movement in the past few years, and the chances are high they will stay around for a long time.

While many are still reticent to display conspicuous consumption even four years after the nadir of the global financial crisis, interest in accessing them is growing. Increased convenience is helping to drive the trend - among fashionistas who live far from high-end stores in the larger metropolitan areas. Various services covering transportation and accommodation, as well as clothing and accessories, offer a treasure trove of luxurious and fashion-forward, if not temporary, goods and services.

So start planning that getaway weekend on Social Flights. According to the site, over 15,000 users have access to 600 private aircraft that have room for a few more people in a Cessna or even a helicopter. The service claims it can schedule last minute trips without the hassle of dealing with the commercial airlines for about the same price. Some of the participating air carriers sound as if they would be in a novel, such as American Business Airways or HarmonyAir. Once they land, the passengers could hop into a shared town car service such as Uber or Exotic Car Share. Alas, one luxury car sharing service, HiGear, shut down after a criminal ring infiltrated the company, bypassed background checks and stole some cars; since then the company’s assets were sold to Rent2Buy. Of course, if a trip requires a water route, Voyage Yacht Share is a membership service that provides access to luxury yachts and marinas 28 days a year.

Once you arrive, you'll need a place to crash, but you can skip Couchsurfing this round. If you hopped the pond from London to New York or vice versa, OneFineStay offers flats, penthouses or brownstones in both cities’ exclusive neighborhoods, which now include the East End and Brooklyn. Exclusive Exchanges, with property owners spread from Whistler to Marrakech, has more of a global presence, offering villas or a pad that should be in Dwell or Architectural Digest. Should you need some booze and have plenty of time to make it, you can even score a few rows of grapes in Napa and become involved in the winemaking process, thanks to The Napa Valley Reserve.

Once your travel itinerary and accommodations are sorted, you have got to look presentable. Refashioner is a “curated shopping community” offering everything from outerwear to suits to lingerie and swimwear (the last two are with tags, i.e., unworn, of course) as well as a bevy of shoes and accessories from which members can choose. Bag Borrow or Steal focuses more on the accessories side, with jewelry and designer handbags leading the offerings. Guys should not feel left out: Tie Society boasts a large collection of neckwear.

Not all of the high end luxury goods sharing services will survive--as with any new market trend, there will be a shakeout as what was once a dismissed as a fad becomes a commodity. And mind you, it is not simply a matter of signing up and driving that Ferrari the next day to that deluxe apartment in the sky--you most likely will be vetted. Yet, the brilliance of these sharing services is that more folks making higher incomes are becoming aware of the impact that their consumption has on people and the environment. And for the rest of us, sometimes a little splurge, as in a Fendi handbag for that local fundraising gala or a quick weekend away to Vegas for a friend’s or spouse’s birthday, is a fab way to experience the good life without the massive budget. The champagne life is possible . . . on a microbrew budget.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost). He will explore children’s health issues in India next month with the International Reporting Project.

[Image credit: SocialFlights.com]