Search

Local environmental projects have long been a common ingredient in many corporate responsibility recipes. The challenge is to keep the effort fresh and interesting, helping to grow participation among employees, customers and the public at large. With that in mind, let’s take a look at how businesses can leverage Bat Week to bring renewed attention to local conservation efforts.

Wait, what is Bat Week?

Bat Week is an annual, international effort aimed at raising public awareness of the role of bats in the natural environment.

This year, Bat Week coincides with the run-up to Halloween night in the United States, from this Thursday, October 24, through October 31, a time of year when bats and other nocturnal creatures take center stage in the public imagination.

Halloween is also a time when consumers head for the stores. According to the latest survey from the American Retail Federation, shoppers in the U.S. plan to spend a total of $8.8 billion on Halloween items, for an average of more than $86 per person. Even more interesting, the same survey showed that 29 million people plan to dress their pets for Halloween.

In other words, Bat Week provides businesses with an opportunity to spread the bat conservation message to millions of shoppers, including those who already consider animals part of the family.

Bats and the triple bottom line

Although the connection with Halloween conjures up scary images in U.S. popular culture, the reality is that bats perform critical roles in local ecosystems.

In particular, the U.S. Forest Service advises that bats are an effective alternative to chemical insecticides, insect repellants and electric “bug zappers.” Bats save the U.S. agriculture and forestry industries billions of dollars yearly in, addition to tamping down the population of biting insects around residential areas.

Among the statistics cited by the Forest Service:

• A single little brown bat can catch more than 1,200 mosquitoes-sized insects in one hour.
• A colony of 150 big brown bats can protect local farmers from up to 33 million or more rootworms each summer.
• The 20 million Mexican free-tailed bats living in Bracken Cave, Texas, eat approximately 200 tons of insects nightly.

Bats are also important pollinators and dispersers of seeds, helping to ensure biodiversity in local habitats.

How to help, part 1

As with many other species, bat populations are increasingly threatened by the impact of human activities on the planet.

The problem for conservationists is that relatively few details are known about bat ecology.

One thing is certain, though. Bats have been losing access to their favored roosting places, including caves, abandoned mines, and tree cavities.

That is why the USDA and many bat conservationists recommend installing bat houses.

Bat houses are easy to build, and they are also available for purchase. Whether DIY or store-bought, a bat house should conform to recommended design guidelines.

According to the Forest Service, bat houses should be about 24 to 36 inches tall and just 4 to 5 inches deep. The interior can be separated into up to four roosting chambers of about 3/4” wide (the narrow spacing discourages wasps from taking up residence).

The placement of bat houses is also important. Bats prefer houses mounted on poles or on the sides of buildings, located at least 10 feet above ground. Ideally, they should be 15 to 20 feet above ground, and at least 20 to 25 feet from the nearest tree.

Research is also showing that bat houses should not be hung in areas where they are exposed to bright lights at night, but they do need to be situated where they can receive at least six hours of sunlight daily (or more, in northern states).

To top it off, bat houses should be located in or near a diverse habitat, and with 1/4 mile of water.

With all that said, are you ready for your company’s next community project?

How to help, part 2

With all of these factors to consider, it may be difficult or impossible for a business to entice bats into setting up housekeeping on their property.

However, there are still many other opportunities to help educate the public, for example by funding a bat education program at a local library.

Businesses can also explore opportunities to support federal bat conservation programs.

The U.S. Forest Service alone, for example, has jurisdiction over approximately 25,000 abandoned mines on its properties across the U.S. Under past practices, abandoned mines were completely sealed to prevent unauthorized access. The new, bat-friendly practice is to install iron grates over mine entrances, so bats can reach their prime roosting spots.

Businesses seeking more information volunteer on bat conservation opportunities can contact their State Department of Natural Resources, or contact Bat Conservation International or the Organization for Bat Conservation.

Going to bat for the future

Another way to help is to support research efforts aimed at preventing the deadly “white-nose syndrome” disease, which has wiped out bat populations across the U.S. and elsewhere.

To organize and focus R&D efforts on white-nose disease, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched the Bats for the Future initiative in 2016.

Bats for the Future is funded mainly by the Fish and Wildlife Service, with an assist from the U.S. Forest Service and two leading energy firms, Southern Company and Avangrid, the latter through the Avangrid Foundation.

Researchers have developed some promising treatments for white-nose disease in recent years, but there is a long way to go.

Businesses have ample opportunity to step up and help at this critical point in bat conservation, and the Halloween season provides a fun, engaging platform for spreading the word about bats.

Image credit: Marion Wellmann/Pixabay

By Mindy Lubber

At this vital moment in the global climate crisis, corporate leadership on climate policy is a top priority.

This week, I joined ten other executives of leading nonprofit organizations in an open letter calling on corporate CEOs to use their voice, their global platforms, their credibility, and their networks to support a policy agenda to get us to net-zero emissions by 2050. That is the goal that scientists say is necessary to limit global warming and avoid unprecedented damage to our planet, our economy and our communities.

Some companies are already taking action on climate change, others not so much. 87 global companies have recently committed to science-based targets within their global enterprises, and another 203 number have committed to 100% renewables by 2050 at the latest. And many more are setting ambitious goals and meeting them. 

That’s a good start. But, the one company by one company approach is not enough.

We simply can not get to a net-zero future without effective public policy at the state and federal levels—policies that will drive the market to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and scale up investments in resilient infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy and clean vehicle technologies. 

Corporate CEOs have every reason to lead on policy and be a credible, influential voice. They have the global communications platform to reach tens of millions of people; they have legitimate concerns about the economic impacts of climate change on their businesses and on our economy; and their consumers and employees increasingly favor companies that take action to help protect our planet. 

That credibility and capital has to be spent now. We have an extraordinary challenge and we need to make extraordinary progress.

Greenhouse gas emissions are at an all-time high and continue to rise, warming the planet at a rapid rate. Scientists warn that we have to work urgently to limit average global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. It will mean cutting emissions nearly in half by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050.

That’s why we are calling on corporate CEOs to strongly and consistently advocate for science-based policies at every level of government. These include a price on carbon, maintaining vehicle fuel emissions standards, removing barriers to corporate renewable energy procurement, mandating corporate climate risk disclosures, fostering the electric vehicle (EV) market—and more, including innovative solutions we haven’t thought of yet.

Corporate leadership means setting climate goals, supporting climate policy, and aligning trade association’s policy positions with a net-zero economy. The days when companies could support climate action out of their public relations office and then support the trade associations working against climate policy must end.  

200 institutional investors agree. Last month, they urged nearly 50 of the largest publicly traded companies to align their climate lobbying with the goals of the Paris Agreement, warning that to do otherwise would pose financial risks to their portfolios.

The good news is that some companies already have left their trade associations, while countless others are effectively working with them from within to drive change. Unilever, to cite one strong example, asks its trade associations to properly represent their vision for climate action or risk losing the company as a member. We need to see similar action from more companies. 

Trust me when I say, when business leaders talk, lawmakers listen. 

We know this because Ceres has been mobilizing companies around a science-based policy agenda through the Ceres BICEP Network for 10 years. Just last spring, we brought more than 75 corporate leaders to Capitol Hill to call for a price on carbon, which we believe is the most effective and efficient policy to reduce emissions while strengthening the economy and growing the job market. 

Business leaders should recognize their tremendous capacity—if they don’t already—to effect positive change in the political debates on the climate crisis by consistently following a science-based approach in the policies they advocate for. 

As we saw at the end of September, Greta Thunberg and other young people led more than six million people in protests around the world. They are not asking for action on climate policy—they are demanding it. 

Do our corporate leaders dare ignore them? 

The stakes are too high to ignore them. It’s time for our corporate leaders to speak up and take action. Their leadership is crucial to powering a net-zero economy and a just and sustainable future for all. 

To the CEOs of corporate America: it’s now your turn to lead on climate policy.

Mindy Lubber is the CEO and President of Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit organization working with the most influential investors and companies to build leadership and drive solutions throughout the economy.

Previously published in the 3BL Media newsroom.

Image credit: Sophie Smith/Unsplash

With U.S. unemployment rates at a historically low level, down to 3.5 percent as of September 2019, it behooves companies to find compelling ways to both attract and retain workers. On that note, the popular fast-casual restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill is offering debt-free degrees to employees in an effort to attract and retain top talent. 

As mentioned in several news sources, Chipotle says it will pay for business and technology degrees at five universities—including the University of Arizona, Bellevue University and Wilmington University—for employees who have been at the company for at least 120 days and work a minimum of 15 hours per week. Employees can choose from 75 different degree programs within business and technology. The debt-free degrees round out Chipotle’s Cultivate Education program, which already included a tuition reimbursement program valued at up to $5,250 a year per employee.

“Chipotle recognizes that financial barriers can be one of the biggest obstacles that impede our employees from achieving their fullest potential,” Marissa Andrada, chief people officer at Chipotle, said in a public statement. “We are proud to launch this opportunity for debt-free degrees by providing free tuition to help employees excel in all areas in their lives, both in and out of Chipotle.”

The new offering is promising since total student loan debt in the U.S. topped $1 trillion in 2018, while over half of the young adults in the U.S. attending college took on debt last year.

Tuition assistance builds employee retention and loyalty  

The expanded tuition assistance program moves Chipotle closer to its goal of reducing employee turnover by adopting several tactics. By 2020, for example, the company seeks to reduce retail store management turnover to less than 25 percent year over year, according to its 2018 sustainability report. 

Other retail and food companies have found success with launching more generous higher education tuition assistance programs.

Starbucks’ tuition assistance program, which started in 2014, is a great example of how Chipotle’s new offerings can attract and retain employees: Starbucks retail employees who use the program stay with the company 50 percent longer and are promoted at three times the rate of those who do not participate. 

But educational support is not just about keeping employees—companies can also benefit from having an improved brand reputation within the marketplace.

“Providing educational benefits to employees is a great retention and development tool, but it is also a brand story,” Jason Smith, compensation manager at Denny’s and president of the Chain Restaurant Total Rewards Association, told Nation’s Restaurant News. “When companies help employees accomplish their education goals, they are telling their customer they care, and they believe in second chances.”

Comparing Chipotle’s degree programs to those at other corporations  

While Chipotle’s new offering is promising, it is not unique. Other corporations across many industries have also developed benefits to prepare their employees for the workplace of tomorrow.

And such programs can make a difference in a rapidly changing workplace. It is estimated that 64 million frontline and low-income workers need to evolve their skills to keep up with the automation arriving in the service industries, as reported by Alexandra Wilson of Forbes.

“It’s become pretty trendy for these big corporations to offer higher education benefits, tuition benefits, degree programs, things along those lines to help students,” Kevin Kinser, a professor at Penn State University and head of the school’s Department of Education Policy Studies, recently told Marketwatch. “It clearly represents the anxiety around attending college, particularly for lower-income individuals that many of these companies seem to be targeting for employment.”

Guild Education, the platform that services Chipotle's debt-free tuition program, also maintains Taco Bell’s Start With Us and Stay with Us program, Walmart’s Live Better U program, and Disney's DisneyAspire, but each program widely differs.

Taco Bell’s benefits include $5,250 per year toward an employee’s education and a scholarship that for "innovators" looking to earn a bachelor-level degree.

Walmart’s most recent addition to its program offers high-school students free ACT and SAT prep as well as college credit through an online program for the cost of $1 a day, which is usually reimbursed once the student graduates.

DisneyAspire, Disney’s $50 million education program, not only includes 100 percent free tuition, but also reimburses employees for required books and fees—an offering not provided at many employers, including Chipotle.

“There are so many new jobs that are either coming or that are here already. So, it is shifting from an employer standpoint: How [can you] differentiate yourself?” Chris Trout, VP of learning and development at the Walt Disney Co., said at a recent event, as reported by Yahoo Finance. “From an employee standpoint . . . it’s not just about ‘I need a job and where can I find the highest paying job,’ it’s ‘Where can I find a job in a place that I feel like I can thrive?’”

Image credit: Chipotle

Now that wind energy has gone mainstream, the big challenge is how to squeeze the most kilowatts out of a wind turbine. The task is more complicated than simply increasing the size and efficiency of the turbine. People—and businesses—need electricity when they need it, but the wind blows when it will. The result can be an undersupply of wind energy during peak demand periods and an oversupply at other times, especially at night.

Until recent years, batteries and other energy storage systems were too expensive to help bridge the mismatch between supply and demand. However, more economical technology is coming online, and it's having a powerful impact on both the wind and solar energy markets.

Meeting the wind energy challenge

Idaho-based KORE Power is one company tapping into the potential for scaling up the global wind industry through energy storage.

Lindsay Gorrill, CEO and director of KORE Power, explains that energy storage can help spur investor interest in wind farms, because it can significantly reduce the amount of time that wind turbines are idled or operating at a lower capacity due to oversupply.

“When you drive by a wind turbine and you see only one (or none) running, it means they are not utilizing the wind. Storage enables you to utilize that large capital you’ve spent,” Gorrill explains.

To be clear, energy storage is just one cog in the many gears of grid management, so there are other considerations in play. Nevertheless, the basic idea is that investment in a wind farm is more attractive when the capital is sunk into equipment that creates energy more of the time.

Estimates vary by a wide amount, but energy storage has the potential to enable wind farms to operate consistently at close to 100 percent capacity. Without energy storage, some wind farms barely operate in the double digits.

Bigger and better wind turbines

The benefits are coming into sharper focus not only because energy storage costs are falling, but also because wind turbine technology is improving.

The U.S. is already dotted with wind farms that are operating with older, less efficient turbines. Existing wind farm owners are seizing the opportunity to re-power their wind turbines with new technology. That provides an opportunity to scale up the energy storage component as well.

Gorrill also notes that energy storage technology, like wind technology, is evolving rapidly. Until recently, for example, lithium-ion battery technology has focused primarily on the electric vehicle market. That means finding a delicate balance between cost, efficiency, size and weight. In contrast, the stationary energy storage field can focus primarily on cost and efficiency. 

KORE Power’s Mark 1 utility-scale battery illustrates the difference in approaches between mobile and stationary energy storage, and the company is already keeping an eye out for future iterations of the technology.

Energy storage is replacing gas

The scaling-up of wind (and solar) capacity also has direct implications for the United States' reliance on gas power plants.

In recent years, grid stakeholders have relied on building new gas “peaker” plants to provide extra electricity during high demand periods. Now, the preference is shifting to building energy storage facilities instead of gas peaker plants.

“One of our biggest opportunities for storage is the peaker plant," Gorrill explains. "Every utility in the world has one. It’s usually gas or coal, but if you take that peaker plant and replace it with batteries, you can charge it at night. What’s happening is that the battery component of these platforms is economically viable enough to work. We don’t need a lot of subsidies.”

Storage is generally source-neutral, meaning that a battery could be recharged through fossil fuels or nuclear power as easily as renewables. Nevertheless, the falling cost of both wind and solar provide renewables with an important bottom line advantage.

In addition, cities and states with aggressive renewable energy goals are pushing the movement into wind and solar storage, and away from gas. One good example is the city of Los Angeles, which is on track to abandon a plan for building three new gas peaker plants in favor of energy storage and renewables.

More wind power for U.S. businesses

Over and above all of this activity is a new burst of development in the U.S. wind industry. Previously confined to onshore wind farms, the wind industry is finally on the verge of tapping into thousands of megawatts in U.S. offshore wind resources.

When that happens, it looks like the energy storage industry will be ready.

Image credit: Karsten Würth/Unsplash

(Image: Students take to the streets of Vancouver, Canada, calling for more urgent action on climate change and just climate transitions.) 

By Mathilde Bouyé and Jesse Worker 

The September U.N. summits on climate action and sustainable development offered a stark contrast between the half-empty, access-restricted meetings inside, and the streets from thousands of cities worldwide filled with protesters, demanding climate justice from the political leaders that have thus far failed them. Inside, the most inspiring and ambitious statements came from youth, indigenous leaders, small island states and other countries that have contributed the least to the problem.

While action from the world’s largest emitting countries fell short of expectations, public mobilization broke records: Over 4 million people across 185 countries joined climate strikes on September 20 and more than 7 million on September 27.

This mass public mobilization underlines the intertwined nature of the climate crisis with crises in justice and democracy. Governments would do well to listen to their constituents’ demands for urgent, just, people-powered and inclusive climate action.

Civil initiatives are becoming increasingly confrontational

Unlike more traditional climate activism, which was often led by non-governmental organizations, the latest wave of civil initiatives is multigenerational, comes from the bottom up and has wide public support.

This year has seen unprecedented momentum of civil disobedience confronting political inaction. School strikes for climate were organized in over 125 countries, and record protests blocked coal mines from Germany to the Philippines. Extinction Rebellion, a rapidly growing global civil disobedience movement, has made headlines from Melbourne to London and Rio de Janeiro with direct actions asking for drastic changes to face the climate emergency.

Climate litigation has also become a global trend. NGOs, youth and elderly people—including a group of grandmothers—are taking  governments and fossil fuel companies to court for failing to fulfill their obligations. Courtroom victories in the Netherlands, Colombia and Pakistan provided a template for a global legal movement to compel governments to step up. In France, 2.1 million people last year signed a petition to support such a lawsuit filed against the French government. A growing number of complaints maintain that government inaction is a violation of human rights. This includes the U.N. complaint filed by Greta Thunberg and 15 other young people against five big emitters, citing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This global movement demands climate ambition and justice

Public mobilization movements around the world are demanding urgent climate action based on human rights and intergenerational and social justice, going beyond the so-called “eco-warrior” narrative. This builds on increasing awareness that the climate crisis threatens fundamental rights to water, food, safety and housing, and exacerbates inequality. The United Nations rapporteur on poverty and human rights acknowledged as much this year by warning against a climate apartheid “where the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer.”

These movements also demand equal access to the benefits from the climate transition. Climate taxes, green technologies and adaptive solutions, such as population displacements, can put greater burdens on low-income and disadvantaged groups.

Climate measures perceived as unfair are increasingly sparking pushback. French Yellow Vest activists and Filipino jeepney drivers had similar reasons for rejecting higher prices for fossil fuel and a shift toward electric vehicles: They fear revenue and job losses. The yellow vests were not anti-climate action, they were pro-justice, and they put forward proposals to strengthen climate action while ensuring that big businesses contribute their fair share and that there is equal access to electric vehicles.

There is ample evidence that governments can leverage climate action to reduce inequality. Major transformations in energy, land-use, housing, economic and transport systems can be designed in ways that offset existing inequalities in access to jobs, resources, services and opportunities. Small-scale renewable energy can help achieve universal electricity access, for example, just as energy efficiency can dramatically reduce energy poverty and improve people’s lives. Green public transport and ride-sharing systems can disproportionately benefit underserved communities in suburban and rural areas.

There are some promising signs. Nearly 50 countries committed to develop Just Transition Plans to protect workers and promote decent jobs in transforming their economies, and the U.N. launched a new Climate Action for Jobs initiative. While these are welcome efforts, too few commitments address the other social dimensions of the climate transition, such as the Pact of Impact promoting social and environmental investments and the Equity pledge signed by 37 world cities to reduce urban inequality through climate action.

Across the globe, people seek democratic climate transitions

Failure to act on climate change fuels greater distrust toward political elites and shows the limits of representative democracy. The growing civil movement underscores that climate transformations require nationwide conversation, public participation and direct involvement of local communities.

These claims need to be considered in a context of erosion of democracy and shrinking civil space across the globe. The 2019 Freedom in the World report records the 13th consecutive year of decline in global freedom, with civil rights and freedoms of speech under attack and environmental defenders at increasing risk in many parts of the world. A few—too few—initiatives promoted at the U.N. Climate Summit supported greater democracy for sustainable development, including the Escazu Convention on information, public participation and justice and a new Global Hub for Governance.

One of Extinction Rebellion’s main goals is the creation of a citizens’ assembly on climate and ecological justice to push for bold political decisions. Such assemblies or conventions have been set up in several countries, including Ireland, the U.K. and France, to unlock progress on actions that might otherwise be blocked.

Experiences of direct democracy to drive social and ecological transitions are also growing around the world. There is some evidence that local, community-led solutions support climate transitions. Some local initiatives, in places as disparate as India and France, indicate that people can effectively advance sustainable options when they are making decisions for their own communities.

Climate transitions offer great opportunities for such initiatives that reinvigorate local democracy. Distributed energy systems, short and circular supply chains, and nature-based solutions can give back economic power to local communities and offer opportunities for new collaborative and inclusive forms of management.

This potential is also seized by an increasing number of local, people-owned cooperatives managing shared resources (water, energy, parks), also called “commons," or sustainable economy projects (locally-sourced supermarket; repair shops). These social innovations can contribute to making climate transitions more democratic, inclusive and affordable.

These multiple forms of public mobilization have a strong role to play to pressure governments to step up climate action by 2020, hold them accountable for climate justice and take initiatives to scale up impact.

People-driven and -centered social and democratic innovations have proven environmental and social benefits and could also help restore trust in politics. This movement may be our greatest source of hope to tackle the climate emergency.

This story was previously published by the World Resources Institute 

Mathilde Bouyé is an Associate in the World Resources Institute's SDG Delivery Team and the Sustainable Finance Center. She conducts research and activities on policy coherence for sustainable development, with a focus on ensuring a joint and consistent implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to global climate action. Follow her on Twitter.

Jesse Worker is an Associate II with the Environmental Democracy Practice (EDP) where he developed and manages the Environmental Democracy Index—the first tool to measure how well national laws in 70 countries protect access to information, public participation, and access to justice for the environment. He is also the climate governance strategic lead for EDP, working closely the World Resources Institute’s Climate program and Climate Resilience Practice. Follow him on Twitter.

Image credits: Flickr/Roaming-the-Planet and Unsplash/Marcus Spiske

Fossil fuel stakeholders are leaning on carbon capture to keep coal and other fossil fuels relevant, but the technology has yet to prove itself commercially. Meanwhile, renewables are beginning to surge within the global energy market at scale, and at competitive prices. The opportunity for future growth is particularly evident in the U.S., which has only just begun to tap into its rich offshore wind resources.

No country for carbon capture

When the global offshore wind industry began to accelerate several years ago, the U.S. sat on the sidelines. Technological obstacles held back offshore development along the Pacific coast. State-level political obstacles were just as challenging along parts of the Atlantic seaboard.

That presented an opportunity for carbon capture technology to enter the energy market. However, the window has already slammed shut. One key setback occurred in 2015, when the U.S. Department of Energy suspended funding for FutureGen, the nation’s showcase carbon capture research and development project.

Over four years later, the U.S. still has only one utility-scale carbon capture project in operation, located at the Petra Nova coal power plant in Texas.

A second utility-scale carbon facility was planned for a power plant Mississippi, but it has been shelved in favor of natural gas.

Meanwhile, offshore wind turbine technology has already proven itself in the global market, and those turbines will soon be peppering the waters of the U.S. east coast.

East coast offshore wind roars into life

For some perspective on the opportunities for offshore wind growth in the U.S., consider that the nation’s first offshore wind farm, Block Island, began operations in 2016 in the waters of Rhode Island, with only five turbines and a combined capacity of 30 megawatts.

Now, a slew of new offshore wind projects are in the pipeline, and these projects are massive in comparison.

One significant development occurred last summer, when New York state moved forward on a new offshore wind energy contract with the Denmark-based energy firm Ørsted.

Dubbed Sunrise Wind, the 880-megawatt project will be located off the coast of eastern Long Island. (Last year, Ørsted also acquired Deepwater Wind, the developer of the Block Island wind farm.)

The New York wind farm is particularly significant because it is part of the state’s ambitious plans for renewable energy and job creation.

On the strength of that plan, New York state has also been tapped to lead the newly created National Wind R&D Consortium. The organization was formed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy in order to accelerate wind energy development, both offshore and onshore.

Last summer, plans for another Ørsted-backed, 1,100-megawatt wind farm off the coast of New Jersey also passed a major milestone.

Offshore wind has scaled up, so now what?

While U.S. offshore wind development demonstrates how quickly a previously untapped offshore wind market can open up, there is still much that policymakers can do to accelerate the trend.

“The offshore market is really taking off,” observes Devapriyo Das, senior communication advisor at Ørsted. “The technology is here, and the key is to scale it up faster. That will take more ambitious policies from governments around the world.”

Das notes three areas in which the wind industry can make the case for wind power as a matter of broad public policy, over and above simply providing more clean power. All three involve a web of challenges and opportunities.

One area involves the emerging concept of a just transition, in which displaced energy workers and other local communities benefit from jobs created by renewable energy projects.

“In both the New York and New Jersey projects, the question is: How do you enable jobs and growth in local communities?” Das says.

Another is to protect and promote biodiversity at the wind farm, an area in which Ørsted has a head start.

The third area involves local content, and that may be the most difficult to address. "A faster transition means you should go with most competitive price, exploit existing economies of scale, and exploit the existing supply chain,” says Das, but those goals can come into direct conflict with community benefits and the aims of a just transition.

Despite the challenges, Ørsted intends to lead by example. The company is rapidly shedding its coal portfolio and plans to be coal-free by 2023, as an interim step to becoming “virtually carbon-free” in energy generation by 2025 — almost 30 years ahead of carbon neutrality goals laid out in the Paris climate agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which carbon capture could scale up quickly enough to change Ørsted’s mind about coal, and it’s a safe bet that other energy firms are keeping an eye on the company’s progress toward a carbon-free future.

A reminder: We're pleased to offer 3p readers a 25 percent discount on attending the Forum. Please register by visiting the 3BL Forum website and use this discount code when prompted: NEWS2019BRANDS.

Image credit of the Burbo Bank offshore wind installation in the United Kingdom: Ørsted

By Kirsten James and Nicole Tanner 

Chances are if you’ve bitten into a strawberry, blueberry, blackberry or raspberry lately, it was supplied by the world’s largest berry company, Driscoll’s. With products sourced from 21 countries, and sold in 48, Driscoll’s supplies a third of the global berry business.

But growing berries can be a water intensive proposition, with the added challenge that prime growing regions are often located in areas of high water stress: Eighty percent of Driscoll’s acreage globally can be found in California and Mexico, regions which coincide with significant water risks to businesses and the communities in which they operate.

Having weathered drought conditions in their North American growing regions through much of this decade, Driscoll’s doesn’t want to leave much to chance. The company recognizes that financial success and water stewardship go hand in hand—and it sees smart water management as a business imperative to ensure its growers can continue to produce for decades to come.

To this end, this week Driscoll’s is taking its water stewardship one step further by becoming the latest company to join the Ceres-WWF AgWater Challenge. Through new ambitious commitments focused on its North American supply chain, Driscoll’s is looking  to reduce water impacts and help ensure sustainable water supplies in the basins where it does business. 

Ceres and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) launched the AgWater Challenge in 2016 to encourage better and more strategic water stewardship among the world's most influential food and beverage companies. Driscoll’s joins eight existing AgWater Challenge participants that represent over $264 billion in annual revenue. Through engagement from Ceres and WWF, the AgWater Challenge helps companies refine their approaches to sustainable sourcing and water stewardship in their supply chains.

The global food sector uses 70 percent of the world’s freshwater supply, yet water supplies face catastrophic threats from the combined effects of climate change, pollution and mismanagement. By 2025, half of the world’s population will live in water-stressed areas. Given these pressures, food and beverage companies must do more to value and protect freshwater in the regions they operate by reducing their impacts and partnering to protect and restore critical watersheds.

With a value chain that includes over 700 independent growers, Driscoll’s has set long- and near-term water stewardship goals for its Americas business unit, including several time-bound, measurable commitments to address water quality challenges across the value chain. These include:

• Complete water risk assessments for all existing and new growing regions in the Americas and integrate them into the company’s fruit supply planning process by the end of 2021.
• Create a water policy and framework by the end of 2020 which encompasses regional risk assessment, stakeholder impact and engagement, public policy engagement, roles and responsibilities, critical issues and responses, and internal targets and goals.
• Identify key water impacts and set new goals to reduce those impacts in each high-risk sourcing region.
• Provide training for every grower and functionally relevant employee in highest-risk districts, with additional training and resources to be provided to growers who wish to engage in water management planning at the community level.
• Convene company peers in California regions (e.g. buyers, producers) to share learnings from California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation and develop a common voice of support around the successful implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans.

In addition, Driscoll’s has committed to implement relevant regional programs that help meet groundwater sustainability plans in California and support stakeholder activities that ensure high-quality water is accessible, affordable and reliable to all members of the community.

Driscoll's new commitments build upon a solid foundation of existing efforts to manage water collaboratively, including its deep involvement in the passage of California’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and its ongoing implementation. As a leader in the industry, the company is setting a strategic example that water stewardship is a top priority. And by joining the AgWater Challenge, Driscoll’s is sending a clear message—smart water management is a business imperative.

A version of this story was previously published in the 3BL Media newsroom.

Kirsten James is the Director, Water at Ceres. Ceres is a sustainability nonprofit organization working with the most influential investors and companies to build leadership and drive solutions throughout the economy.

Nicole Tanner is World Wildlife Fund’s Water Stewardship Lead. WWF is one of the world’s leading conservation organizations, dedicated to delivering science-based solutions to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, halt the degradation of the environment and combat climate change.

Image courtesy of Driscoll' via PRNewswire

Last week, International Airlines Group (IAG) became the first airline group in the world to set a net-zero carbon emissions goal, which it plans to achieve by 2050.

As part of the commitment, IAG’s largest operating company, British Airways, will offset its domestic flight emissions beginning next year. In the near term, IAG will primarily reach its goal through offsetting—by British Airways and its other companies, such as Aer Lingus and Iberia—as well as significant investments in sustainable fuels and by replacing older aircraft.

Airlines have made offsets available to their customers for years, although uptake was never strong. In 2018, however, airlines with international routes agreed to offset any emissions over 2020 levels starting in 2021, under a U.N. agreement called the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

British Airways' announcement marks the first time an airline has pledged to offset all domestic air travel emissions. Much like Honda’s recent announcement about its large renewable energy investment, corporations in the transportation sector taking a stand to act on climate change sends a powerful message. 

Some groups have been critical of offsets as a strategy in the transportation industry, and for airlines in particular. Criticism is not without merit when looking at the history of offsets. When offset programs first began, they typically involved projects like planting trees—which, while extremely worthwhile, take 20 to 30 years to reach fruition. Such projects also led to challenges in accountability and counting carbon equivalents.

However, as the offset market has matured, so have both the projects and the accounting and transparency standards. For example, more common offset projects now include initiatives like methane capture for biogas from dairy farms and landfills, investment in wind farms, and financing for international aid projects that come with multiple environmental benefits including carbon emissions and beyond, such as distributing clean-burning cooking stoves. 

Further, critics say the airline industry should do more than offset, especially in light of the the fact that it accounts for about 2 percent of global carbon emissions and its impact has been rising in recent years. The problem with existing technology solutions for air travel, as opposed to road or rail travel, is that using electric and hybrid airplanes is simply not an option in the near-term. Although technology is advancing, for long-distance flights, it's simply not there yet. 

The key factor to note in IAG’s announcement is that while the bulk of the early reductions will be made through offsets, its commitment also includes other initiatives. In addition to investing in sustainable fuels and replacing older aircraft with newer, more efficient models, IAG says it plans to reduce weight and waste on board aircrafts, reduce energy use and increase the deployment of renewable energy, expand electric vehicle fleets, and invest in the development of hybrid and electric aircrafts.

While some of these investments aim to reduce emissions from the company's overall operations, not just flying, investment in improved efficiency and advanced technologies will address emissions directly related to those long-distance trips. With any luck, British Airways will soon go far beyond its domestic offsetting program.

Just like every other component of addressing climate change, there is no silver bullet in the transportation sector. IAG’s plan is a good first step, and hopefully one that other companies will follow. Still, there is considerable work to be done. 

Image credits: British Airways and Nathan Hobbs/Unsplash

Big-box retailers can hardly afford to take risks these days. Thousands of U.S. retail stores have shuttered over the past few years, and experts say an economic slowdown is looming in the months ahead. Nevertheless, last week Dick’s Sporting Goods burst into the media spotlight by announcing that it had destroyed $5 million in gun inventory that went unsold after the company restricted firearm sales. 

That was a risky move. The gun safety movement is gathering steam, but the National Rifle Association is still a powerful antagonist. The NRA tweeted out the news to its more than 791,000 followers, most likely with the expectation that Dick’s would become the target of a consumer boycott. 

Crossing a line on gun safety

Instead of suffering a boycott, though, it appears that Dick’s may have set itself up for a fresh wave of new customers. That is partly because Dick’s has been advocating for gun safety for several years now, so it has probably weathered the worst that any boycotters could do.

In addition, Dick’s has gained a considerable amount of free publicity as a leader on gun safety by deciding not to sell certain types of guns and limiting sales to customers age 21 and up. That has attracted fans—and shoppers— among the gun safety movement

On the other hand, destroying guns is an entirely different approach than removing them from store shelves. It represents a leap into new, uncharted territory. The stage was set last year, when Dick’s raised an important question about retailers that decide not to sell guns: What are they doing with their unsold inventory? 

That’s a key question, because gun-rights laws in many states are still weighted in favor of gun ownership. Even the gun itself has rights: More than a few states have regulations on the books that require law enforcement agencies to sell guns seized from criminals, rather than destroying them.

In that context, Dick’s crossed a new line—and threw down a new challenge to the gun lobby.

The big gun meltdown: Money talks

The interesting thing about the new announcement is that Dick’s didn’t necessarily have to draw attention to the destruction of its inventory at this time. After all, the pledge was made months ago, and the media has moved on.

However, it appears Dick’s felt it was important to demonstrate that the pledge was made in earnest. On October 6, Edward Stack, the company’s CEO, sat for an an interview with CBS News and announced that the company had indeed destroyed its inventory as promised.

Dick’s has destroyed $5 million in gun inventory since last year, Stack said. Further, he estimates that the company gave up a quarter of a billion dollars in sales since 2017, when it stopped selling guns to customers under 21. The numbers were impressive enough to catch everyone’s attention, and the story has been rippling through the media world all week. 

Crossing another line on gun safety

Dick’s announcement increases the pressure on retailers and other businesses to upend the status quo on gun rights and normalize gun safety instead. A new wave of gun safety activism has been aimed at the National Rifle Association. Lately the organization has been weakened by internal strife of its own making, but it is still actively lobbying against gun safety legislation.

Another aspect of gun safety activism involves a business owner’s responsibility to create a safe environment for employees and customers. That responsibility has come into conflict with state laws that permit open or concealed carrying of firearms. Levi-Strauss was among the first leading brands to “respectfully request” that customers keep their guns away from its stores.

Momentum for this approach reinvigorated last summer. Following another mass shooting at one of its stores, Walmart asked customers to please leave their guns at home, with retailers including Kroger, Walgreens, CVS and Wegmans soon following suit. The common thread is a Levi’s-style plea for voluntary cooperation, but there has been a new twist: Some retailers are publicly stating that they will work with grassroots activists to lobby for gun safety laws.

A calculated risk

The end result has been to restore the shopping experience to some semblance of normalcy. For an increasing number of people, the sight of a stranger carrying a gun in a retail store for no discernible reason sets off alarm bells, not nods of approval.

The next challenge for gun safety activists is to de-normalize carrying guns in public, and that is exactly what Dick’s has done with its new announcement. During the CBS interview, Stack discussed the thinking behind the decision to destroy the company’s gun inventory. “You know what?” he said. “If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them.”

It is unlikely that other retailers will follow Dick’s latest move any time soon, at least not in large numbers. However, the company has blazed a new trail for others to follow, whenever the next mass shooting takes place.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

The familiar warning, “be careful what you wish for,” hit the National Basketball Association in full last week when it became embroiled in the months-long clash between Hong Kong civil rights protestors and allies of the Chinese government. The NBA has now become a test case for leading businesses that seek to maintain a solid corporate social responsibility profile in the U.S. while tapping into the large, lucrative Chinese market.

The Hong Kong protests: It’s going to get worse before it gets better

Relations between Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland have been heating up ever since the British handed the former colony back to China in 1997. The tensions boiled over this year, and clashes between Hong Kong protestors and police have grown violent.

As the protests spread, they're gaining support among the general public in Hong Kong, with Reuters reporting that "school children, office workers, shoppers and the elderly" were among the demonstrators at some rallies. 

Adding more fuel to the fire, last week U.S. President Donald Trump announced a breakthrough in U.S.-China trade negotiations. The announcement all but green-lights China’s efforts to turn up the pressure on Hong Kong activists, potentially leading to more violence.

Brands under the bus

In the midst of this fraught situation, last week Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey posted a brief statement in support of the Hong Kong protestors on his personal Twitter account. 

He quickly deleted it, but the damage was done. The reaction in China was swift and furious.

NBA President Adam Silver eventually issued a formal public statement to defuse the situation, but he only touched off another firestorm in the U.S. by appearing to acquiesce in the suppression of free speech.

The problem, many say, was that Silver deflected. He pointed out that the NBA is just one among many global brands bringing “business to places with different political systems around the world.”

That much is true, but that is also where Silver’s argument goes south. Until recent years, U.S. brands doing business in other countries could position themselves as ambassadors of American culture, practicing “an important form of people-to-people exchange,” as Silver put it.  Brands could afford to ignore undemocratic practices in other countries only because they were cushioned by the firm hand of U.S. foreign policy, which has long positioned the U.S. as the keeper of the flame of democracy and civil rights.

During the Trump administration, however, some feel U.S. policy has become unpredictable, inconsistent and unreliable. In effect, businesses have been cut adrift from a vital support system.

The real problem is not the Morey tweet. The problem is that Silver failed to acknowledge that the concept of “people-to-people exchange” loses all value when it is not supported by strong U.S. policy on democracy and civil rights.
Other brands taking stands over social issues in the U.S. could also be at risk if they take a public position in support of the Morey tweet. So far, none have.

Democracy and personhood

There is another problem with Silver’s statement. He concluded by observing: “Sports can be a unifying force that focuses on what we have in common as human beings rather than our differences.”

In this context, Silver fundamentally misses the point. “What we have in common as human beings” is not simply a matter of enjoying the same extracurricular activities. The definition of a person is also a matter of national identity.

In the U.S., the definition of a person is written into the founding documents of the nation, most famously in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

The Declaration also tightly links this rights-based definition of personhood to the role of government. As viewed by the founders, the primary purpose of a government is to secure the rights that define a human being: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Those rights are further defined in the U.S. Constitution, which premises the expression of personhood on the ability to express ideas without fear of reprisal from the government.

The award-winning U.S. writer Mitch Albom drew out this difference in the Detroit Free Press last weekend. In particular, Albom cited one official response from China on the CCTV network. The statement neatly sums up the disconnect between personhood, government and free expression in China: “…any remarks that challenge [China’s] national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.”

In this context, the idea that the NBA—or any brand, for that matter—is an ambassador for Western-style democracy is a hollow shell, one that Morey may have just cracked wide open.

Image credits: Brandi Redd and Tommy Boudreau via Unsplash