It does not take much internet sleuthing to end up gorging on data and analysis that suggests many of the world’s largest financial institutions have lit many of the matches that fired up the global climate crisis. Much of the criticism is based on the fact that the same financial institutions which say they are all-in on fighting climate change are also financing fossil fuel projects — to the tune of almost $4 trillion since the Paris climate agreement alone, according to one estimate.
The fate of the planet and global banks are intertwined
As with companies in any sector, banks loathe to admit they are responding to any outside pressure, but the handwriting is on the wall — partly in the form of pressure from the likes of activist investors and environmental nonprofits. Further, organizations including Ceres offer analysis time and again suggesting the climate crisis poses its own threats to the global financial sector. Such risks include mortgages that could be affected by overbuilding along the coasts and stranded assets abandoned by a shrinking fossil fuel industry. At the same time, banks are primed to lead, not dodge, the global push to take on climate change.
“For the global economy to decarbonize quickly, there is no substitute for political leadership from the top,” wrote TriplePundit’s Tina Casey in late 2019. “Nevertheless, investors and other financial stakeholders are positioned to hold the torch until national governments come up with a more aggressive position on climate change.”
Bank of America has its plan to address the climate crisis
To that end, Bank of America recently ramped up its long-term plan to address the climate crisis. Last week, the bank said it would add a financial boost to what it calls its environmental business initiative. Bank of America claims that since 2007, it has already distributed more than $200 billion in financing for low-carbon and sustainable business projects worldwide. If all goes according to plan, the total amount Bank of America will commit to services including lending, capital raising and advisory services will reach $1.5 trillion by 2030.
The company also notes that its involvement has helped deploy 33 gigawatts of renewable power capacity across the U.S. since 2015. On the social sustainability side, Bank of America’s efforts include a $2 billion bond launched last year, which the company says will help foster progress on racial equality, new economic opportunities, and investments in renewables and transportation that could benefit marginalized communities.
Could banks do (or not do) more?
For some critics of the financial industry, such announcements also raise questions about banks’ commitments to climate action when a closer review of their leadership suggests otherwise. For example, journalists Emily Holden and Emily Atkin recently took a look at America’s largest banks and their boards' ties to the financial sector. Citing data from the British investigative media outlet DeSmog U.K., it turns out that directors with past or current links to companies that add to the climate crisis often dominate these corporate boards. The list of financial giants reads like a VIP list of companies that say they are focused on the climate crisis: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Citi all have boards in which a minimum of 75 percent of the directors have ties to the fossil fuel industry or another carbon-intensive sector.
To be fair, this is not a uniquely American problem. And even if these same banks suddenly stacked their boards with executives who can boast ties to organizations like Tesla, Ørsted, Patagonia or Greenpeace, the climate crisis wouldn’t recede at any point soon. Look far past the borders and shorelines: There are plenty of other industrial powerhouses hosting banks that have a similar corporate governance problem, including the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Japan.
Many of these same directors are backing the controversial new route in Minnesota for the Line 3 pipeline, which opponents say would have a destructive impact on land home to Native Americans on top of the climate change arguments. Critics of the project, including Native Americans in Minnesota, have also pointed out that massive fossil fuel projects result in additional unwanted pipelines — as in those funneling illegal drugs and human trafficking.
One bank has committed $1.5 trillion to address the climate crisis by 2030; critics respond that the fires banks are fighting are same ones they've lit.
We’ve said it before, we’ve said it often and we’ll say it again: COVID-19 hasn’t revealed inequalities in the U.S., but has exacerbated those that already existed. And as federal largess spreads across the country and filters down to the local level, evidence suggests that the whiter the community, the more money it's likely to receive. The cruel reality is that the towns and communities that need the most assistance are often receiving the least. For every Black-owned business that scored a segment on feel-good television shows like Good Morning America, countless other businesses and services have already lost any chance for survival.
Louisiana: The poorer you are, the less relief funding you should expect
Take, for example, what’s been going on in Louisiana. A recent report issued in tandem by the Hope Policy Institute and Louisiana Power Coalition has found many local governments (called parishes in the Pelican State) with a majority population of rural, poor or people of color received far less funds than their wealthier counterparts. For example, one analysis found that parishes home to a majority of people of color got less than 40 percent of the funds they requested from national COVID-19 stimulus packages. For majority white locales, that figure stood at 52 percent.
“The government’s ability to respond efficiently in times of disaster can make all the difference for a faster recovery and more resilient future. It’s very likely that the very communities that would have benefited the most from relief funds are the ones most left behind and will feel the economic burden longest and hardest,” said Calandra Davis, a policy analyst at the Hope Policy Institute, in an emailed statement to TriplePundit. “We hope that this research will allow us to work towards a better, more equitable future in the Deep South and were honored to partner with the Power Coalition in their efforts to right-size relief efforts in Louisiana.”
The poorer the parish, the worse the disparity became: For example, the least wealthy parishes (those facing “persistent poverty,” as the report describes), received less than a third of what should have been their allocated funds. The funding gap also showed when comparing those same poor and rural parishes: In terms of actual dollar amounts, poor Black parishes received less than 7 percent of what poor majority-white parishes received in COVID-19 relief funding.
“Inequitable distribution of funding to reimburse these costs will mean fewer resources in the future for jurisdictions that were largely left to fund the response on their own,” the report concluded. In other words, the poorest communities that received the least funds will have an even steeper hill to climb over the next several years.
In Maryland, the size of small business loans depends on where you live
A thousand miles away, a similar situation has already unfolded in Maryland.
Last fall a study from the nonprofit news organization Capital News Service analyzed Small Business Administration (SBA) data and found a wide disparity in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Out of approximately 60,000 loans the program distributed to smaller Maryland-based businesses, there was a $7,000 gap in average loan size between majority-white and majority-Black ZIP codes. Put another way, business owners in white communities on average scored loans more than 20 percent larger than those in Black communities.
That schism in funding mirrors the gap in COVID-19 prevention efforts across the state: In February, a Baltimore Sun report concluded that white Marylanders were receiving COVID-19 vaccine doses at a rate four times higher than that of their Black neighbors.
An opportunity for companies to step up for equitable COVID-19 assistance
Such disparities have been reflected across the country, in both the disbursal of economic relief funds and the healthcare access necessary for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. This reality is hardly a sudden development: Last summer, a Journal of the American Medical Association study concluded that the way healthcare funding was allotted under the federal CARES Act largely rested on hospital revenue data, not actual COVID-19 cases — which ended up short-changing Black communities across much of the U.S.
“The federal government is doling out pandemic relief money to hospitals using a formula that discriminates against predominantly Black communities because, in general, less is spent on their health care even when their need is greater,” wrote Bloomberg’s Dina Bass and John Tozzi last fall.
We have a situation where industries that for decades contributed to racial inequality in the U.S. — financial services and healthcare — are actually now in a position to fill in the gaps where the federal government has fallen short. Some banks are undertaking such efforts: Bank of America’s five-year, billion-dollar-plus plan that it updated last month is one such example. But as with the case of healthcare companies, financial companies have a long road ahead as they start to address the inequities they helped to fuel in the first place.
As dollars for COVID-19 relief efforts spread across the U.S., evidence suggests that the whiter the community, the more money local communities score.
Photo: The Polestar 2, a midsized all-electric vehicle currently available in markets including North America and Europe.
Supporters of electric vehicles (EVs) tout these cars’ climate-friendly credentials compared to conventional automobiles. And while the vast majority of metrics suggests that assumption to be true, there is no shortage of caveats. The extraction of raw materials necessary for EVs, such as lithium and cobalt, is an energy-intensive process, and critics of the industry point to numerous environmental and human rights problems. Questions about these vehicles’ carbon emissions, depending on whether they are recharged in communities that rely on coal versus cleaner sources of power, are also a point of discussion. Then we have to look at the overall sustainability of the cars’ materials — and of course what happens when EVs’ battery packs reach the end of their lifecycle.
Nevertheless, most experts on the subject agree that EVs are a far more efficient and responsible option — hence most of the world’s automakers, from GM to Jaguar, are committing to bold long-term electric car targets.
Nevertheless, one automaker says it will leave no stone unturned when it comes to the sustainability street cred of its EVs. Sweden-based Polestar, owned by Volvo Cars (and, by extension, Geely), recently announced its “moonshot” goal of a genuinely climate-neutral car by 2030.
How exactly that will happen is still under wraps. The brand’s cars are currently manufactured in China, which raises countless questions on its own. But Polestar has made its long-term goal clear: It estimates that the current 26 tons of carbon emitted to manufacture one Polestar 2 will incrementally decrease each year, reaching zero by decade’s end.
For that to happen, Polestar realizes it has to take a look at everything involved with manufacturing its EVs, whether it’s the aluminum, steel, battery components or the materials comprising the cars’ interiors.
And no, we’re not talking about planting trees or purchasing carbon credits in any form.
“Offsetting is a cop-out,” said Polestar CEO Thomas Ingenlath in a public statement. “By pushing ourselves to create a completely climate-neutral car, we are forced to reach beyond what is possible today. We will have to question everything, innovate and look to exponential technologies as we design towards zero.”
Polestar claims a climate action mindset is already integrated within the business, and the employee bonus structure at the automaker is designed in part to help meet its climate targets.
Much of this drive’s long-term success depends on transparency, as Polestar said it will start this process by disclosing its current cars’ carbon footprint and traced risk materials. The company will then post additional information on its website so stakeholders can monitor any progress.
Last week’s pledge is just another step in the company’s progression toward climate neutrality since its first EVs were announced back in 2017. Last year, Polestar announced it would start taking on more waste reduction efforts, which included tactics such as finding ways to reduce its EVs' overall weight as well as phasing out plastic or replacing it with plant-based materials.
Sweden-based Polestar, an all-electric vehicle brand owned by Volvo, recently announced its “moonshot” goal of manufacturing climate neutral cars by 2030.
More and more plant-based foods are hitting grocery store shelves, and there’s a reason: Consumers are increasingly open to trying foods that are cruelty-free and have less of an environmental impact. Most analysts agree this niche market is growing so fast that, in fairness, we should no longer call it “niche.”
As we are always told, competition is good for the marketplace, and with more competition, plant-based entrees and snacks keep getting better year after year. So many new products are rolling out that it’s difficult to keep track. If you’re looking to ditch meat and dairy, or are on the hunt for alternative sources of protein, you have far more options today than the sad, pallid veggie burgers of the early 2000s.
Let’s start with plant-based entrees
The Cool Beans masala wrap (Image credit: Cool Beans)
Cool Beans: It’s a wrap: When you’re in a hurry and just want something fast, wraps are the perfect way to fuel up. These wraps are truly plant-based: There is no processed soy, wheat gluten or mycoprotein in them. Instead, they are chock-full of whole ingredients like legumes, grains and vegetables. And as for that dietary checklist, these wraps are gluten-free, dairy-free, soy-free and egg-free … i.e. vegan.
Pros: When I noshed on the Tikka Masala option, this omnivore for sure thought there was chicken in it. But nope, it’s just a very well-done blend of chickpeas, coconut milk and masala seasoning with vegetables. “I could have eaten two more of the Moroccan ones,” said 3p’s partner sampler in crime.
Cons: The only cooking instructions were for the microwave, and with anything starch-based, we know how that goes: The sogginess of the wrap can get in the way of blissful yumminess, so experiment with the toaster oven, cook them on the stovetop in an iron skillet, or try microwaving for a bit and then pop them into the oven to enjoy that toasty texture.
The soy-based BBQ chicken option from LikeMeat (image credit: LikeMeat)
LikeMeat: Are you into chicken, whether it’s barbecued, roasted, nuggets or grilled, but seek an alternative? These new products, currently available at Sprouts, are a tempting option. Made with soy (non-GMO, the brand clearly states), all four varieties are worth trying out.
Pros: Well flavored and spiced, with no messy, sugary or sticky flavor packets to add, and if you are packing in the protein, these foods will help you reach your daily bulking-up goal. The company also offers various cooking options, conventional and for the microwave. “Surprisingly awesome,” said a friend of 3p.
Cons: Like many plant-based fake meat products, the texture can come across as rubbery.
Beyond Meat now has breakfast links and patties (image credit: Beyond Meat)
Beyond Breakfast Sausage: These are heady times for Beyond Meat, which recently announced a new factory outside of Shanghai, China. Its new line of breakfast sausage has been out a while, but we’ve noticed it is in more stores, so we tried it.
Pros: This is way better than the standard, gritty disks of soy made by ... we’ll just call the brand “EveningSun." This is weekend breakfast as we love it, without animal cruelty. And if you’re avoiding soy, Beyond's pea-based sausage links are a great alternative.
Cons: If you’re watching your saturated fat intake, stick to oatmeal, or just don’t read the nutrition label — part of that texture is due to coconut oil, after all.
What about between meals?
If you're bored with crackers, Pop Bitties are an option (image credit: Mark's Mindful Munchies)
Pop Bitties: Remember those GeniSoy soy crisps that were all over the place a decade or so ago, were repackaged as private label goodies for stores like Trader Joe’s, but have long since disappeared? Well, they’ve reemerged again in a different form and formula, thanks to Mark’s Mindful Munchies. For those skittish about soy, Pop Bitties are a snappy blend of sorghum, chia, quinoa and rice; flavor options include both savory and sweet.
Pros: “I don’t feel like I need to cancel out the flavors with sour cream and Lipton French Onion soup mix,” said one sampler. He’s right: Whether you crave spicy, salty or sweet, the flavors are perfectly subtle. It's hard to stop at one bag.
Cons: We definitely noticed a grit factor, so if you have a few fillings in those molars or have sensitive teeth, let the chomper be beware. Ouch!
Kite Hill has an impressive range of dairy-free yogurts (image credit: Kite Hill)
Kite Hill yogurt: Earlier this year, Kite Hill relaunched its almond-based yogurts after listening to consumers’ feedback, and the new products are a huge improvement. The creamy texture, we dare to say, is even better than a lot of the dairy-based options found in stores, which often include gelatin as an ingredient. Purists may object to Kite Hill’s use of starch, citrus fiber, locust bean gum and xanthan gum, as well as almonds, but for consumers who wish to avoid animal products yet want to get that digestive culture groove going on, Kite Hill is one of the best plant-based options out there.
Cons: You won’t get a lot of calcium from these yogurts, so depending on your diet, consider taking that calcium-vitamin D supplement based on what you and your healthcare provider think is best for you.
Free of many things, but Miyoko's is rich in taste (Image credit: Miyoko's Creamery)
Miyoko’s Creamery cheddar slices. Yes, this brand has been around a while, but it deserves a mention. Many of us love cheese, but not the fat content, and those conscious of dairy's environmental footprint or impact on animal welfare often prefer turning to plant-based alternatives. Yet the problem with fake cheese is twofold. First, many dairy-free cheese products have ingredients such as potato starch and coconut oil, which offer little nutritional value. Then, of course, there is the texture — if David Rose thought folding in shredded dairy cheese was impossible, imagine the fiasco resulting from a dairy-free option.
But Miyoko’s Creamery offers not only an inspirational story about its founder, but the oat milk-based cheddar slices, among the brand’s other choices, also set the bar for cow-free cheese much higher.
Pros: That umami often missing in plant-based cheeses is here and will drive you to keep opening that fridge to nosh on slice after slice. While many plant-based cheese products taste flat, Miyoko’s has an edge.
Cons: “Unlike the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz, it’s not melting!” complained 3p’s co-sampler. Well, in fairness, it melts better than many plant-based options, but it’s not quite ready for that Kobe beef or Impossible Foods slider quite yet.
What about when we start the day with cream in our coffee?
As we begin our mornings, many of us like cream in our coffee (or tea) as the fat brings out the subtle flavors of those beans. The flip side is we don’t want all that saturated fat in half-and-half or (yum and gulp!) heavy cream. Then, of course, we can't ignore the animal welfare factor, which is one reason why more consumers are seeking coffee creamer that is moo-free.
The fake granulated creamer (or whitener) isn’t necessarily an option (unless you're at a PTA meeting or church, when fake creamer, sugar cubes and Sweet'N Low are it), and not just because of that unfortunate funeral home scene in Schitt’s Creek (Season 3, Episode 3, 9:20 into the episode). Coffee Mate and its imitators have their various flavors, but as anyone knows when they score coffee at a gas station or convenience store, the wicked sugar high from those options often hit you as soon as you leave the cash register.
Almond and coconut are among the base ingredients in Danone's new line of coffee creamers (Image credit: Danone)
Honest to Goodness: A team over at Danone gets it: Plant-based creamer doesn’t mean your blood sugar has to go through the roof. The company recently rolled out new creamers made from ingredients including almonds and coconut.
Pros: The unsweetened vanilla flavor scores highly on the indulgence meter, and the sweeter options, either vanilla or Himalayan salted caramel, are easy on the sugar. “I can’t stop pouring it in,” said one sampler. Frankly, this is one of the best plant-based creamers around.
Cons: If you’re fussy about your coffee’s appearance after you add cream, you’ll still find that coagulation factor going on, so keep stirring, or just close your eyes and sip if that very sight offends you.
Lavva is one company introducing the pili nut to more consumers (image credit: Lavva)
Lavva: All hail the arrival of pili nuts, one of those foods that sounds too good, sustainable and delicious to be true. Rich in minerals and protein, they have a reputation for thriving in harsh conditions where little else can grow. To that end, Lavva introduced a couple pili-based milk products and a creamer last fall. The company’s products are not always easy to find, but if you can grab a bottle of the brand’s chocolate milk, it’s worth trying.
Pros: Relatively low in calories, and the chocolate milk works well if you are into earthy flavors like that of hemp milk; it's also sweetened with dates, and the combo works.
Cons: This was a polarizing product — some liked the earthy taste and found it refreshing in the coffee. But as one sampler said, “I like earthy flavors, but this tastes like something I’d imagine coming from Mars.” Depending on how your taste buds are wired, you might react the way some people flinch at cilantro or anything licorice.
Impacts from the pandemic, civil unrest, generational preferences and other changes in our world are accelerating an organizational shift I’ve been observing for some time, from Fortune 500 companies to the smallest of businesses. While traditional, hierarchical structures are still all around us, many corporations are moving to a more interdependent, flexible management perspective, what some management consultants like myself have termed a “living system mindset.” As we think about this new type of leadership, it’s helpful to understand its roots, if you’ll pardon my pun.
Although management consultant and best-selling author Margaret Wheatley helped bring the idea of an organization as a living system to the forefront in the mid-1990s, the idea that businesses are dynamic, constantly evolving and regenerative entities has only recently begun to resurface. The good news is that it’s happening fast right now, as we’re seeing examples of this philosophy not only with smaller, more nimble companies; but this living system mindset also gaining traction at giant corporations like Delta Airlines and even Walmart.
Instead of control, leadership in a living system focuses on the best ways to “unleash” the assets of the workforce, trying to identify where they can promote things like creativity and positivity, which increases energy. The organization seeks to collaborate at all levels of the workforce and doesn’t try to drive performance solely from the top down. We can redefine collaboration through a regenerative worldview as the amount at which employees feel invested in and motivated by their work – and it is key to employee engagement.
Just like thriving natural habitats, regenerative businesses are often much more diverse in their leadership and their workforce. This diversity goes beyond ethnicity to embracing a culture that welcomes a variety of cultures, beliefs, workstyles and preferences. Leaders see the potential of all employees by recognizing they have an “essence” or potential beyond classifications. Helping them realize this potential leads to them taking ownership and pride in their work. Their skills and the challenges they undertake grow and shift like a living system, too. A key step to achieving this is letting workers choose the role they play in a project, thus awakening their essence and potential. The regenerative worldview constantly reminds us every individual is different regardless of the role they play in the company, and by freeing them of the boxes we usually put them in we see them grow more productive, more ambitious, more skilled and more engaged.
Living organizations can make more effective changes on the whole by focusing on information and feedback. By understanding the patterns within an organization and valuing the organization’s relationships with external partners, investors and the environment, a company’s leadership can position future strategies based on what it is seeing today.
Consider that the ultimate living system, nature, is constantly evolving based on feedback – such as what helps or hinders survival – then companies embracing living system principles also need to keenly watch data and be flexible. Any successful company already makes adjustments based on data, but living systems focus on the long term by making predictions based on current feedback and then remaining open to agile changes if data shows progress strays from the predicted course.
The drive toward more regenerative business is not just a philosophical choice. It’s a solid business decision. Newer generations of workers are demanding that their employers be more purpose-led, another important hallmark of a living system organization.
We’ve seen this trend well before the pandemic hit. A 2019 study by Deloitte found that “Purpose-driven companies witness higher market share gains and grow three times faster on average than their competitors, all while achieving higher workforce and customer satisfaction.”
Beyond motivating employees, living system organizations are able to adapt more quickly, and evidence of this resilience is clear as we turn the corner one year into the global pandemic. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently released a list of the top characteristics common among businesses that have pivoted and grown during the pandemic. Social responsibility, flexibility, creativity, communication and not surprisingly, empathy, were all at the top of this list. Given what we now understand of living systems, it’s clear to see that these traits map very closely to those of living systems organizations.
Fortunately, shifting to a living systems mindset is not a “one and done” endeavor. Learning to work in an interdependent fashion, embracing diversity and focusing on a bottom line that includes more than just profit are all steps we’re taking collectively as a business community. While I wish that the momentum toward more regenerative business models had increased on its own, instead of as a result of so many crises in our world, we are seeing some major patterns emerge that I think will be better for business leadership, individuals, our communities and our planet. Just like nature, living systems simply make more sense now.
Though traditional management structures are still around us, business leadership is moving toward a more flexible approach - i.e. a living system mindset.
When I sent my coming out email, I started with the comment “….I would like to share some personal information. I know that this will come as a surprise to many of you and that this may take understanding, patience, and compassion to fully process. I have identified as a woman my entire life, since before kindergarten, since before language, and during all the years you have known me.” I wrote that for a reason: there is a general misconception that transgender people simply wake up one day and say, “I’d really like to try a different gender today,” and that’s where the problems can start. It’s not only a false assumption, but it can be a dangerous one.
Trans people may take a different path to their gender than others, but that doesn’t make it any less valid. That’s what I want everyone to realize.
Before coming to PwC, like so many trans individuals, I faced discrimination once I transitioned: I was encouraged to not use the women’s bathroom and many colleagues refused to call me by the right pronouns. I like to think that I am someone who contributed to my former organization’s success, but I found myself feeling fearful and stigmatized at work every single day. Public accounting is hard enough and no one should have to feel uncomfortable on top of it. As my time since transitioning grew (I use transitioning here loosely because I am realistically never done) I found myself more and more inclined to not share my whole self with people that I met.
A 2015 study from the National Center for Transgender Equality of 27,715 trans individuals in the US showed that 77% took active steps to avoid mistreatment at work, such as hiding their gender identity, delaying their gender transition, refraining from asking their employers to use their correct pronouns, or quitting their jobs. Although progress may sometimes be slow, it has become my mission (and a select group of other trans folks at PwC — shoutout TransFam) to help make sure no one else ever has to go through that.
I share all of this to contrast where I am, and where the profession is, today. Thankfully, I have always felt emotionally and professionally supported by PwC and those I work with. Because my line of work is so niche (and people talk), my new colleagues already knew about my past before I came to the firm. And they never treated me any differently. It seems so simple, but that is one of the most meaningful ways to show support.
It is crucial that organizations recognize the tremendous emotional weight that comes with suppressing one’s gender identity — and that they have trans-specific policies to support them. I’m grateful to have had advocates at PwC uplift me in more ways than I could have expected. I am in an environment where I can be my true self, and I’d like to share some of the things that have helped me along the way.
Three Ways Companies (and Individuals) Can Be an Ally Now
Treat us like everyone else. To start, treat your trans employees the way you want to be treated: Use the right pronouns — and if you don’t know, ask, and if you make a mistake, apologize, and be mindful for the future. Be an advocate, especially if you’re not part of a marginalized group (if you want to know what that means, feel free to email me). Every person has a basic need to feel like they belong. Trans folks aren’t looking for special treatment — we just want the same respect as everyone else.
Provide necessary care. Leaders can prioritize inclusive insurance plans, which include transgender-related healthcare for their trans employees. Some parts of transition, if one chooses, are a huge financial investment, and a shocking amount of trans related healthcare is only marginally covered by insurance.
Advocate for equity. Establish an advocacy group of individuals who are specifically trained to address the issues trans folks face and their experiences in the workplace, and who can help educate cis-gender employees. Bonus points for having actual trans people in the group — there’s a saying I love that captures this: “nothing about us, without us.”
In many ways, I consider myself an accidental advocate. When I transitioned several years ago, I had not planned to become an advocate or an activist. I wanted to get through transition as quickly as possible and go about my life. But my journey has made me realize how much work there is to be done and how important it is for leaders and allies to stand up and help others down their paths. We aren’t there yet, but take a few minutes to listen to others’ experiences and we will be there sooner than we think.
Trans people may take a different path to their gender than others, but that doesn’t make it any less valid. Here are 3 ways companies and colleagues can be allies now
Despite progress over the past decade in government commitments to combating climate change and protecting forests, corporate “no-deforestation” and human rights policies, and significant investments to support sustainable forest management, the rate of natural forest loss continues to increase. Forest loss impacts not only the environment, but also approximately 1.3 billion forest communities and Indigenous Peoples who rely on forests for their livelihoods.
As advocates and companies turn their attention to engaging and enabling forest communities as stewards of the forest, as well as tackling climate change and deforestation more broadly, working together can achieve more significant results, experts say.
New initiative brings companies and communities together as ‘Forest Allies’
In addition to supplying many of the products we use in our everyday lives and providing critical benefits like carbon sequestration and water regulation, forests support approximately 1.3 billion forest communities and Indigenous Peoples who rely on them for their livelihoods. Forest Allies, a new initiative from the Rainforest Alliance, brings companies together with forest-dependent communities to tackle deforestation and resilience issues. Through their work to maintain and restore forests and the biodiversity within them, Forest Allies prioritizes helping forest communities adapt to climate change and improve economic livelihoods while elevating their expertise in partnerships to implement sustainable forest management at scale.
“Collaboration is key,” Samantha Morrissey, forest products sector lead for the Rainforest Alliance, told TriplePundit. “We often see our partners across various sectors sourcing from the same landscapes and regions experiencing similar challenges, but [they] often lack the opportunity to come together to learn from each other, pool resources and co-create solutions.”
Further, even as companies that rely on forests for their supply chains become more aggressive about developing strategies around sustainability and forestry, their efforts are somewhat limited if they can’t engage the full range of local stakeholders.
“Very small companies with limited supply chains do have the opportunity to engage directly with their suppliers and ask these important questions” related to implementing sustainable practices and building policies based on local needs, Morrissey explained. “But large international companies continue to struggle to gain the visibility within their supply chains needed to engage in this way, and given the scale and size of their sourcing footprints, such an exercise would be prohibitive in terms of time and resource intensive.”
To address this disconnect, the Rainforest Alliance compiled a learning assessment and inventory based on their experience working with community forest enterprises and formed the Forest Allies community of practice. The aim of these efforts is to enable all actors across industries, sectors and the supply chain, regardless of size, to contribute to the improved health of a region by enabling community forest management at scale.
The Forest Allies initiative leverages the Accountability Framework, and requires members are to align their policies, strategies, and activities with it. The Framework is a set of norms to help companies define and operationalize deforestation-free supply chains alongside a common approach to monitoring, verifying, and reporting their progress.
Overall, Forest Allies members want to reorient stakeholder conversations to better balance top-down approaches, such as certifications and corporate policies, with a bottom-up approach that centers communities, which they say can help redefine what business-as-usual looks like.
Corporate decision-making is historically focused on prioritizing time, quality, cost and profits, leaving inadequate space for collaboration and partnerships that take time and resources to build. “Now, we have seen an emergence of the dedicated consumer and the ‘impact corporation’ where decisions are made not only based on time, quality and costs, but also in consideration of impacts and externalities,” Morrissey told us. “This shift requires collaboration and partnerships in order to be successful, because the challenges we face are too great for any one company to address alone.”
It takes a village
Corporate commitments for individual supply chains are no longer enough to tackle deforestation and the concomitant problems of human rights violations and poverty. Those commitments need to align with “public-sector measures that improve land sector governance, enable sustainable rural development, and create incentives to conserve forests,” Morrissey said.
The inextricable link between the forest, the communities that depend on it, and the corporations that rely on it for their supply chain needs is clear. As such, solutions to maintaining the health of the forest must also address the health and well-being of forest-dependent people and enterprises. As climate change continues to affect forests, adaptation and resilience measures must be socially just and include responsible forest management and land stewardship in order to protect and strengthen the bonds of interdependence between people and nature.
Morrissey noted the positive impacts of such measures in forested areas of Guatemala and Mexico, where the Rainforest Alliance works with local associations, governments, industry and communities to reduce forest fire risk through improved forest management. Companies including Procter & Gamble, a longtime partner of the Rainforest Alliance, are also making more stringent commitments to work beyond their supply chains to improve the resilience of forest-dependent communities. Companies including Procter & Gamble and Kingfisher are already engaged with Forest Allies, and Rainforest Alliance is still actively recruiting new corporate members .
Continuing the work to protect and restore forests
The Rainforest Alliance and its partners are far from the only groups working to improve forest management by engaging corporate and local stakeholders.
Regardless of who is spearheading the effort, the key to an effective, sustainable solution is understanding the root causes of the issues on the ground and aligning goals and solutions accordingly. For example, Morrissey referenced a partner that wanted to use only pesticide-free natural rubber, and instead of limiting their suppliers through policies, visited smallholder rubber farms to understand why pesticides are used and learned that the long grass between the trees hid snakes, so farmers used pesticides to keep the grass back. As a simple solution the partner paid for the grass to be mown. “[Companies] can't go out and mow all of their suppliers' lawns, but they can invest in community forest management and support that investment through meaningful engagement in our community of practice and the partnerships that result,” she told us.
In the end, long-term conservation of any forest must recognize that the best guardians are those who depend on the forest for their lives and livelihoods. Collaborating from the top-down and the bottom-up means that when stakeholders meet in the middle, their solutions are likely to be more equitable and comprehensive.
This article series is sponsored by Procter & Gamble and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.
As advocates and companies turn their attention to forest restoration, working together can achieve more significant results, experts say. “Collaboration is key,” Samantha Morrissey of the Rainforest Alliance told 3p.
Photo: Lake Mead in Nevada, where water stress has long posed risks to the surrounding region.
Water stress is a perennial problem, and is only projected to worsen with climate change. One of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to water is to “ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity” by 2030.
It’s a lofty goal, especially considering every continent already faces some level of water stress. Further, in order to have any hope of reaching that goal, public and private stakeholders alike must fully commit to action. Corporations, in particular, will need to address water use, at every stage of the process.
More corporate risks are driven by water stress
Companies understand that water stress poses risks to both their profits and sustainability performance. According to CDP, an organization that helps companies and cities disclose their environmental impacts and risks, in 2020 companies reported financial impacts of water risks at $301 billion, five times higher than the cost of addressing those risks. The disparity between impact and costs is particularly stark in the food and beverage, agriculture and materials industries.
But knowing and taking action are two different things. Luckily, coalitions and tools exist to help companies make a plan of action for the most effective and efficient water stewardship targets and goals. For example, in 2007 the United Nations Global Compact created the CEO Water Mandate, a public-private initiative that establishes a platform for cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder partnerships to develop and share best practices and actions. So far, 190 companies across virtually every sector have endorsed the initiative.
In 2020, the CEO Water Mandate created the Water Resilience Coalition, an industry-driven coalition aimed at reducing water stress by addressing six different commitment areas: direct operations, supply chain and water management, collective action, public policy, community engagement and transparency.
To date, 19 companies have signed the Water Resilience Coalition’s pledge, which includes developing and implementing a water-resilient value chain and achieving a measurable and net-positive impact on water basins, all by 2050.
Companies have several tools to help them manage water risks
The past few years have also seen an increase in the number and sophistication of tools available to help companies achieve sustainable water stewardship. The World Resources Institute (WRI), an NGO and partner of the CEO Water Mandate, has been at the forefront of providing resources for decision makers in both the public and private sectors.
For example, in 2011, WRI launched the prototype of Aqueduct, an open-source platform that includes maps and peer-reviewed data to help understand and pinpoint water risks worldwide. Since then, the tool has become one of the most trusted sources for data on water stress in the world. WRI has since expanded the tool to include data on floods, droughts, water stress, and, most recently, the NGO introduced Aqueduct Food, which maps water-related risks to food production.
Ecolab, one of the founders and leaders of the Water Resilience Coalition, has developed a tool that takes it one step further: the Smart Water Navigator. The Smart Water Navigator builds on the foundation that WRI and others have built by placing a monetary value on water quantity and quality risks and help users develop an action plan to mitigate such risks. Colin Strong, a research associate who works on corporate water stewardship at WRI, noted that the Navigator could help all water users in a basin participate effectively in addressing water stress risks as it helps companies responsibly manage water issues. The tool helps provide companies an action plan for improving facility water management, target setting, stewardship and conservation.
Ecolab developed the Smart Water Navigator in partnership with S&P Global Trucost and Microsoft; the Minnesota-based company also has a strong set of data partners and advisors, including WRI, the Pacific Institute, the UN CEO Water Mandate and the Alliance for Water Stewardship.
Even before the launch of the Navigator, companies took advantage of the Water Risk Monetizer, now part of the Navigator tool, to help with better water management. For example, in 2017, Microsoft used the Monetizer to prioritize a water management project at its San Antonio data center to create a site-specific water efficiency and quality plan in a region with high levels of water stress.
Climate change will intensify water stress
Climate change will continue to stress water supplies, and with it, water stress will further stress the economy. Companies may understand the risks to their bottom line but they also must actively address them. The most straightforward initiatives are at the operations level, but water use in the supply chains is greater and often in water-stressed areas. This reality is especially true for companies with agricultural suppliers, such as the food and beverage, CPG (consumer packaged goods) and apparel. For example, agriculture accounts for 85 percent of General Mills’ global water footprint.
It’s no longer enough for companies to focus solely on operations. Addressing supply chain water demands is more complicated, but tools like Aqueduct, the Smart Water Navigator and others can help chart a path for a more sustainable water future for companies, even in the regions with the highest risks.
Water stress will put more companies at risk, but various tools can help create a plan of action for the most effective water stewardship targets and goals.
