Search

As we were often reminded during the recent Climate Week events, forests are in full retreat around the world—and their loss has dire implications for countless species, including us.

According to a recent report, populations of forest-living birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles monitored by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have declined by an average of 53 percent, in less than a single person's lifetime. For skeptics still looking for the canary in the coal mine, look no further. From accelerated climate change to increasing resource scarcity and infringement on human rights, the impacts of deforestation and land conversion represent a clear and present danger to human health and well-being. And we’re running out of time to turn the tide.

Nearly 500 companies have committed to eliminating deforestation and human rights violations from their supply chains, but precious few are currently on track to meet their 2020 deadlines. Many have struggled with the “how,” their efforts stymied by confusion over definitions for key terms and methods for implementing commitments and measuring progress.

But now, as we approach the 5-year anniversary of the New York Declaration on Forests – the global pledge to end deforestation from agricultural supply chains by 2020 – WWF and partners have created the roadmap that companies have been looking for.

This roadmap for avoiding deforestation and land conversion comes at a critical time. Right now we’re on course to lose an area of forest over twice the size of Texas by 2030. Historically, agriculture has been the biggest culprit, with just a few commodities—including beef, soybeans, wood and palm oil—responsible for most conversion.

The race to expand production, rather than doing more with less by intensifying production on already-cleared land, risks sacrificing one of our most effective tools against climate change. Every year, forests soak up roughly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the ground. When we lose forest, we lose capacity to sequester more carbon and release previously stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Indeed, deforestation is the second largest source of CO2 emissions after the burning of fossil fuels.

Forests also help regulate Earth’s hydrological cycle. Deforestation plays havoc with this natural weather engine, producing shifting rain patterns that have already impacted agricultural productivity in many regions of the world.

Furthermore, forests support a wealth of biodiversity and natural resources. They are home to eight out of ten land-dwelling species and 300 million people, and provide a source of income for over a billion more. Unchecked deforestation threatens mass extinction and unprecedented economic upheaval. 

Thus far, the progress companies have made toward more sustainable production falls short of what’s needed to avoid catastrophe. Many companies that have committed to no deforestation in their supply chains have cited lack of clarity over definitions, metrics, tools and other key principles and guidelines. These companies reached out to the non-profit world for assistance. Over the course of two years, WWF joined with more than a dozen environmental and social groups to design the Accountability Framework. It provides the implementation guidance companies need to close the gap between ambitious commitments and tangible results. 

The Accountability Framework shows companies how to establish, implement, and monitor progress on their commitments—and it helps them choose the right tools for the job. It also lays out how they can respectfully and effectively engage indigenous peoples, local communities and smallholder farmers in the process. And, critically, the Accountability Framework makes clear the expectation that companies will go beyond their supply chains by collaborating with other stakeholders in sector-wide or landscape-wide initiatives aimed at protecting or restoring forest habitats.

We cannot curb global warming and stem the alarming loss of biodiversity without decoupling production from deforestation and land conversion. The Accountability Framework provides a blueprint for companies to do exactly that. But even the best-laid plans are for naught if companies can’t summon the will to drive truly transformational change. "I don't know what I'm supposed to do" is no longer an excuse for inaction.

Again, virtually no companies are likely to meet their original 2020 deadlines. But what they do over the next year is still critical. At the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Beijing next October, world leaders will hopefully agree to a New Deal for People and Nature, a global pact to stop biodiversity loss that would complement the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and the forest goals of the New York Declaration on Forests. Between now and then, companies can leverage their considerable influence in support of this New Deal. More importantly, companies can lead by example, demonstrating with their own actions in line with the Accountability Framework that rapid progress is possible.

Image credit: Kevin Ortiz/Unsplash

TriplePundit has been covering the U.N. General Assembly and Climate Week NYC for the past few weeks. You can follow our coverage here. 

Some in the financial services industry seem to have just awakened to the realization they need to assess their risks. This shift in thinking is due in part to the growing awareness of the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosure and a grasp of its guidelines. It might also dawn on those same bright minds amongst the one percent that addressing their risks involves a flight of capital from the most vulnerable places and, thus, a knock-on effect of increasing vulnerability and disparity between rich and poor.

But not yet.

Instead, the financial industry’s top brass speaking at HSBC’s “Financing a Sustainable Future” event, part of last week’s Climate Week in New York, frequently centered on de-risking and disclosure, given the negative impacts of climate risks on banks, stock portfolios, consumer markets and real estate.

Those focusing on material loss to portfolios – rather than such loss to the world’s most vulnerable – were the European Commission’s Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), Bloomberg’s special advisor to the Chairman as well as its global head of sustainable business and finance, the head of sustainable finance at the Global Policy Initiatives Institute of International Finance, Moody’s infrastructure finance expert and the International Finance Corporations’ climate business head.

What does all this mean? It’s simple: Those facing disproportionate vulnerability to climate hazards – the global majority – will see less infrastructure investment, job access and social services. In effect, in the sustainable finance world of these big thinkers, stranded assets are ignored. And I don’t mean coal-fired power plants. When a flight of capital occurs from places facing climate hazards, what is stranded are human beings – members of our community left homeless, without jobs, without schools and without modernized infrastructure.

Last year, I asked this question: Is TCFD Guidance Exacerbating Social Inequity? And suggested that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, go further with his claims about the “tragedy of the horizon.” Other experts are acknowledging this issue. 

The private sector-led Coalition for Climate Resilience Investments launched by Willis Towers Watson and the World Economic Forum at last week's General Assembly includes an aim to provide “support for climate vulnerable geographies to attract investment and prevent capital flight as climate risks become more evident.” Further, in a paper authored by Climate Finance Advisors for UNEP-FI and the  Global Commission on Adaptation, Delivering Finance Today for the Climate-Resilient Society of Tomorrow, global finance system experts point this out:

“Identifying the financial implications of climate risks will create enormous opportunities for profitable investment by all types of investors, including both public and private finance. However, the same understanding may also trigger potential capital shifts or flight from the poorest and most vulnerable communities and countries, those most in need of investment in adaptation and resilience.”

They add: “Governments are likely to require the expansion of safety net programs for the poor and most vulnerable.”

Each of their recommendations could be reinterpreted with the aim of decreasing disproportionate risk, including, for instance:

• Accelerate and Promote Climate-Relevant Financial policies [that explicitly protect the most vulnerable].
• Develop, Adopt, and Employ Climate Risk Management Practices [that explicitly reduce risk to vulnerable populations].
• Develop and Adopt Adaptation Metrics and Standards [including benefits gained by vulnerable populations]

CFA’s findings influence the Global Commission on Adaptation report to lead with this:

“Climate change could push more than 100 million people within developing countries below the poverty line by 2030. The costs of climate change on people and the economy are clear. The toll on human life is irrefutable. The question is how will the world respond: Will we delay and pay more or plan ahead and prosper?”

I think the finance leaders speaking enthusiastically at the HSBC event have an answer to that question: They are working to ensure prosperity. Let’s plan and act on it being for the global majority, not just the one percent. 

Image credit: United Nations/Facebook

Editor's Note: This article series is sponsored by Philip Morris International.

When Hasan Youness was growing up in Lebanon, he often ran errands for his parents. But there was one thing he wouldn’t do: get cigarettes for his father. “Get your own cigarettes, dad, and feel free to use the balcony,” Youness recalled saying, as recounted in a September blog post. “Didn’t you see the picture of the lungs of smokers in the science book?!”

That is why it is surprising that, today, Youness has engaged in a dialogue with Philip Morris International (PMI) and formed an unlikely friendship with its social impact and sustainability lead, Jennifer Motles. His motivation is one he says the tobacco giant shares: creating a world without cigarettes. 

Youness is a strategic advisor to the U.N. Global Compact in Lebanon and professor of strategic management and sustainability at Lebanese International and Notre Dame Universities. He’s also a leading voice for the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), including SDG 3, Good Health and Wellbeing. For him, there is no other way to achieve the goal than by working with all stakeholders involved—even those who others demonize.   

“When it comes to making progress on the SDGs, we cannot afford to exclude anyone,” Youness said in an interview with TriplePundit, during which he was clear that he is not an employee or consultant for PMI. “If an organization is engaged and demonstrating that they're making a real effort, then it’s imperative to include them in the discussion.” 

Working toward a smoke-free future

PMI, known for its Marlboro brand epitomized by the tough-looking smoking cowboy, says it is committed to accelerate the end of cigarettes, for the benefit of consumers, the company and society. It proclaims on its website that it is shifting resources to transform its business and become a smoke-free technology leader as quickly as possible with new offerings such as IQOS, a heated tobacco product. 

“There is no substitute for quitting, and regulations should continue to dissuade people from starting to smoke, as well as encourage cessation,” Motles of PMI wrote in an article co-authored with Youness, which appeared in the Global Goals Yearbook 2019. 

“Yet, for the hundreds of millions of men and women globally who will otherwise continue to smoke, PMI’s goal is to switch current smokers to nicotine-containing products that are scientifically substantiated as better choices than continuing to smoke. Even though they are addictive and not risk-free, these products have the potential to significantly reduce the individual risks and population harm when compared to cigarette smoking.”

To be clear, cigarettes are still, by far, the largest part of PMI’s business, but Motles says this is changing, as PMI reallocates its resources—including 92 percent of its global research and development budget and 60 percent of its commercial expenditure—toward smoke-free products. She also notes in the Global Goals Yearbook that the company is striving to help at least 40 million people who would otherwise have smoked cigarettes to switch to its smoke-free products by 2025, reducing the number of PMI cigarette smokers by a total of 55 million. 

PMI has developed business metrics to track its progress, which are included in its annual sustainability reports. Youness, whose role often centers around guiding change at companies like PMI, says these metrics are critical to build credibility and indicate the company is truly committed and not just putting forth feel-good communications. “Often, [organizations] may want to change,” he said, “but don’t know exactly how.”

“I know there is a huge degree of skepticism and bias about the role we can play,” Motles added. “And, change doesn’t happen overnight. It comes from transparency, disclosure and patience.”

An unlikely dialogue is born

Youness was as surprised as anyone that he would be sitting at the same table with a tobacco company. It started in 2015, when he met Motles while they were both students at Harvard Business School. 

“Jenny works for a company which is a major contributor to health problems and diseases caused by smoking cigarettes,” he recalled on his personal blog. “I always thought of her role and company as a contradiction in terms. What has sustainability to do with tobacco? I used to be skeptical that this industry could even merit my asking of the question, let alone be considered as a potential problem solver.” 

But the two began to talk, Youness sharing his concerns and criticisms and Motles her company’s aspirations and actions. “When I found out they had changed their purpose [in 2016] to the aim of accelerating the end of cigarettes, my perception started to change,” Youness wrote. “I realized that this awful company could actually serve a valuable purpose.” 

For Motles, the key to their relationship was finding common ground, without which, she admits, justifying any partnership can be a challenge. But she told us she firmly believes that where common ground exists, collaboration—even between former adversaries—is critical. 

”We’ve learned from history that when we don’t include every stakeholder that plays a part in an issue, the solutions are not viable or sustainable,” she told TriplePundit. “If we want to create change that is sustainable, unfortunately for some, the only way is to sit everyone around the table and define the standards and role that each of us needs to play to get there. I know it will be hard and uncomfortable, but sometimes it is that discomfort that brings change.”

Image credit: Pexels

By: David Wei, Director, Climate, BSR

At the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, the global community expected national leaders to announce new, more ambitious commitments to combat climate change. While the Summit included a handful of positive announcements—Indian Prime Minister Modi announced a new target of 450 gigawatts of non-fossil energy, German Chancellor Merkel launched a EUR 50 billion climate action plan, several countries increased their contributions to climate finance, and 77 countries committed to net zero emissions by 2050—the ambition of these announcements does not match the urgency that climate change demands.

This lack of ambition arrived as the world is demanding action: millions of students and supporters marched last Friday across the world in the Global Climate Strike, and report after report this year— on biodiversity, on land, on climate adaptation, on oceans— has underscored the urgency to act.

Our goals for the next, decisive decade will determine whether we succeed or fail. To fulfill the promise of the Paris Agreement, nations must deliver much stronger climate targets ahead of next year’s pivotal COP26. At the Summit, national leaders failed to change our path towards over 3°C of warming by the end of this century—and yet, climate action from the private sector accelerated.

The Summit underscored that business must forge ahead with building our net zero economy. From the stark gap between national announcements and business action, I heard three messages:

1. To national leaders and governments: Businesses are showing you how to build the net zero economy. Without improved short-term targets and policies, a promise to reach net zero by 2050 is not enough.
2. To businesses: The argument that governments must go first is truly dead. Companies must generate long-term value for their investors, win the war for talented millennials who demand purpose, and attract consumers who demand sustainable products.
3. To businesses: You may already work hard to reduce your operational emissions and manage climate risks. You may already engage your suppliers and make energy-efficient products for your customers. But if you do not actively influence governments to set more ambitious climate policies, it will not be enough.

Indeed, it is in the private sector where we see momentum for climate action growing with increasing urgency. Five years ago, the Science Based Targets initiative did not exist; today, 647 companies are committed to targets in line with the Paris Agreement. RE100 did not exist; today, over 190 companies are committed to sourcing 100 percent renewable electricity. The We Mean Business coalition, co-founded by BSR, did not exist; today, its Take Action platform features over a thousand companies taking climate action. All in the time of a single election cycle.

Just as building a net zero economy requires the whole of government, building a net zero value chain requires every company department.

At the Summit, business action broadened to more industries. Allianz CEO Oliver Bäte announced a Net Zero Asset Alliance, representing US$2.4 trillion in assets. The Getting to Zero Coalition, for which BSR’s Clean Cargo is a knowledge partner, aims to deploy commercially viable zero emission maritime shipping by 2030. Representatives of the steel, aluminum, and cement industries spoke to their contributions to a net zero pathway. Danone CEO Emmanuel Faber launched the One Planet Business for Biodiversity coalition at a time when one million species are under threat of extinction.

Climate action also deepened within companies: 87 companies with a combined market capitalization of US$2.3 trillion committed to setting climate targets across their operations and value chains aligned with limiting warming to 1.5°C and reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

At BSR, we see how deep climate action can go. Sustainability professionals are working with their operations counterparts to decarbonize production, with their procurement counterparts to decarbonize supply chains, with their risk management counterparts to manage climate risks, and with their finance counterparts to set up climate innovation funds. Just as building a net zero economy requires the whole of government, building a net zero value chain requires every company department.

These companies realize that climate mitigation and adaptation will bring tremendous opportunities to them or to their competitors. Today, it is unfortunate that businesses understand this more clearly than national governments do. But businesses can help to close this gap by calling for more ambitious climate policies by COP26 in November 2020.

Originally appeared on BSR and the 3BL Media newsroom.

Image credit: Juan Di Nella/Unsplash

This article series is sponsored by Smithfield Foods and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team. 

While the discussion around climate change often focuses on the two primary sources of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—power generation and transportation—agriculture is also a key driver. The food and agriculture industry represents between 10 and 12 percent of global GHGs, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that emissions in the segment are growing.

Smithfield Foods is a major player in global agriculture. It is the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer, with sales exceeding $15 billion in 2018. The company’s supply chain includes numerous farms across the United States and Europe, and it has customers in 44 countries on every continent.

With that much scale and scope, Smithfield is in a unique position to have a broad sustainability impact—and it says it’s making significant progress on this front. In February, for example, the company announced a major milestone: sourcing 80 percent of the grain used in its animal feed from suppliers who use more sustainable farming practices. Grain production is the first step of Smithfield’s vertically integrated supply chain and accounts for 15 to 20 percent of the company’s GHG emissions. “This was a meaningful early step aimed at our own supply chain, and a first in our industry,” said Stewart Leeth, vice president of regulatory affairs and chief sustainability officer for Smithfield.

This effort started five years ago through conversations with Walmart and the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Leeth said. Together, the three organizations highlighted fertilizer use on grain fields as an area where they could have a meaningful, positive environmental impact. “The issue there is that over-application of fertilizer creates runoff to surface waters and results in air emissions, so EDF was keenly interested in trying to find out ways to address that,” Leeth told Triple Pundit. 

Fertilizer overuse has been a well-known problem for years, responsible for harmful impact on soil, health and the environment. But addressing fertilizer use in the grain supply chain is not a low-hanging-fruit type of task. Smithfield sources grain from hundreds of farms across the country, and reducing fertilizer use meant working with each of those farmers on education, technology training and proper management.

To help its suppliers adopt more sustainable practices, Smithfield hired on-staff agronomists to travel to farms and demonstrate strategies for responsible fertilizer use. The company also gave farmers access to new technological tools—such as Adapt-N, a nitrogen management solution, and others that help farmers manage on-farm conservation. 

Smithfield has already worked to implement better conservation practices on about 560,000 acres of farmland in the U.S. Southeast and Midwest. In the end, this program benefits not just the environment, but also farmer well-being.

“For farmers, what it meant was less fertilizer use and less costs going into the field” Leeth said. “On the backside, if [farmers use] the soil conservation technology, they might have better yields next year.” Still, some farmers were reticent to do things in a new way. “That took time, to communicate and to build trust,” Leeth told us. 

Achieving the 80 percent target is meaningful, exceeding Smithfield’s original goal of 75 percent, but it's just one step toward Smithfield's broader goal of reducing absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2025 and cutting its total footprint by more than 4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. These long-term trajectories are driven by the company’s values and also, increasingly, market demands, Leeth said. 

“Our sustainability platform is broad and covers a lot of areas—and necessarily so, because we are in the food industry, and people are interested today in how food is made,” he told us. “We’re heavily focused on environmental improvement.”

Along with efforts to improve the grain supply chain, Smithfield is looking to further cut emissions by turning manure methane emissions into biogas. The company is investing hundreds of millions to install methane capture technology on 90 percent of its hog finishing spaces in North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia, and nearly all in Missouri. With methane being 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of short-term warming potential, and farms a key source of these emissions, efforts like these could be vitally important to achieving short-term global climate goals.

There’s a bigger opportunity, too–pushing for broader, industry-wide change. As one of the largest companies in the agriculture and farming business, and with a broad and vertically integrated supply chain, Smithfield hopes to show the entire industry that sustainability is not only achievable, but also financially beneficial. 

“We like to take leadership positions,” Leeth told us. “Other folks see that, and see it can be done, and it’s moving our industry in the right direction. If you have a big actor like us, showing the pathway to success, I think that inspires and encourages others to participate.”

Image courtesy of Smithfield Foods

This article series is sponsored by 3Degrees and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Companies seeking a lower carbon footprint are increasingly adopting electric vehicles and alternative fuels that offer zero, or at least carbon neutral, tailpipe emissions. However, fleet tailpipes are just one point in a complex web of emissions that involve vehicle manufacturers, as well as companies and their suppliers, consumers, clients, employees and contractors.

Decarbonizing that web beyond the tailpipe may seem daunting, but opportunities are growing for companies to tackle their transportation footprints through strategic carbon offsets as well as alternative fuels and vehicle electrification. 

Why transportation?

Historically, coal-fired power plants have been the main driver of greenhouse gas emissions, and the global economic expansion of recent years has contributed to a worrisome increase in emissions from coal power plants.

In the U.S., though, the electricity generation sector has continued to shed coal at a rapid pace. Here, transportation has emerged as the single most impactful source of emissions.

The most recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory of domestic greenhouse gas emissions shows transportation edging past power generation, at 29 percent and 28 percent of total GHGs respectively.

Transportation emissions have the potential to pull further ahead in the coming years as the U.S. power generation sector continues to decarbonize, with both coal and natural gas giving way to more renewable energy.

Challenges and opportunities

While it's become more common for companies to invest in renewable energy to lower their emissions footprint from power generation, few companies currently attempt to offset transportation emissions. 

Part of the problem is the difficulty in taking stock of those emissions throughout the value chain. 

Nevertheless, measuring and addressing transportation is a challenge that can pay off on a bottom-line basis, as a strong correlation has emerged between a company’s stock performance and its willingness to disclose and manage greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, in a recent study, CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) notes: “Corporations that actively manage and plan for climate change secure an 18 percent higher return on investment (ROI) than companies that don’t—and a 67 percent higher ROI than companies who refuse to disclose their emissions.”

No need to reinvent the transportation wheel

Fortunately, companies seeking an impactful decarbonization strategy for their transportation value chain do not have to engage in guesswork.

Scores of leading global companies including 3M, Ford, General Electric, Shell and many more have already “road-tested” the emissions inventory standards outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which is currently the most widely-used accounting tool for greenhouse gas emissions.

The Protocol assigns a group or “scope” to emissions, based on the degree to which companies can exercise direct control over the source. Scope 1 covers emissions from sources that a company owns or otherwise controls. Scope 2 covers emissions that the company can control indirectly, through its energy purchases.

The most challenging group is Scope 3. It covers all emissions in the value chain, both on the supply side and for the end user, including emissions that the company has no control over.

Science-based targets and strategic carbon offsets

Despite the challenges involved in addressing Scope 3 emissions, more than 350 leading companies have already established Scope 3 targets that include transportation emissions as part of the global Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

SBTi enables companies to inventory their emissions and focus on strategic hotspots in line with global greenhouse gas targets. This science-based, holistic approach also helps companies focus their offset strategies in areas that directly impact their value chains.

The California-headquartered renewable energy and climate solutions specialist 3Degrees is one firm that recognizes the effectiveness of addressing Scope 3 goals through strategic carbon offsets.

Mark Mondik, the company’s vice president of carbon markets, describes how carbon offsets can be an especially effective strategy for companies that have little leverage over their downstream emissions.

The key is to think about carbon offsets as a “medium-term” solution that has a ripple effect on the entire transportation sector, contributing to decarbonization over the long run, Mondik said.

The online shopping network Etsy provides one example. The company has no direct control over shipping and transportation emissions related to millions of transactions on its site annually.

“We are talking to fleet owners and EV charging equipment owners about using their facilities for carbon offsets, so buyers like Etsy can pay for those offsets and help subsidize new charging stations,” Mondik explained.

Ride-sharing giant Lyft provides another example. The company does not own the vehicles used by its drivers, which means that virtually all of its fleet involves Scope 3 emissions. In turn, Lyft’s offset strategy revolves around reducing emissions in vehicle manufacturing, with an eye toward a future dominated by autonomous electric vehicles powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

The road to zero-carbon transportation

Though individual companies can contribute significantly to the decarbonization of transportation through fleet management and strategic offsets, consensus is building that the pace of change must accelerate globally in order to avoid the impacts of catastrophic climate change.

That means stronger policies and market incentives are imperative. “The fueling infrastructure we have now was built up over many years with public policy incentives,” Mondik noted. Winding down those entrenched incentives is a matter of dismantling outdated policies and creating new ones that address the need to accelerate climate action.

A policy-based approach is especially urgent considering the potential for the transportation sector to grow throughout the foreseeable future.

“The way we’re doing business these days, especially with e-commerce increasing, may have an impact on increasing transportation emissions,” Mondik notes. “Global trade also has a big impact on air and marine emissions. Meanwhile, the cost of transportation has come down and demand has gone up.”

In other words, zero-carbon transportation is not just a possibility. It is a necessity.

Image credits: Nabeel Syed and Denys Nevozhai via Unsplash

The pressure for companies to take stands on political, social and environmental issues is stronger than ever. But before your company embarks on such a journey, make sure everything your house is in order, advises the Toronto-based organization Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR).

For brands to take a stand for sustainability, they first need to identify their purpose and how they are effecting positive change, said Leor Rotchild, executive director of CBSR. Once that is clear, “the next step is to align themselves internally around that purpose and screen for inconsistencies,” Rotchild continued. “With their own house in order, purpose-driven companies have a responsibility to effect continued positive change through their supply chains, investor markets, industry associations and consumer base. It is not easy, so effectively taking a stand starts with a confident and inspiring purpose backed by measurable action.”

As a think tank and professional organization, CBSR’s role is to help accelerate sustainable innovation and inspire Canadian businesses to advance their corporate practices through peer-to-peer learning and best practice research, Rotchild added. CBSR works with a range of companies from different sectors including finance, energy, mining, and the food and beverage industry. The organization has recently been working harder to promote the Canadian way of doing business and share success stories, thereby being a partner to companies that seek to communicate their purpose.

One way CBSR helps companies evaluate their status and implement sustainable practices is through a framework it created called the Transformational Company Qualities, which is used to guide companies through a process that includes developing a social purpose and addressing supply chain risks and opportunities to engage ​staff, suppliers, investors, and industry associations, Rotchild noted.

CBSR supports employee activism as “an effective way to move employers toward a more inspiring purpose and/or a mechanism for holding employers accountable to their purpose,” Rotchild said. “When a company acts in a way that is inconsistent with that purpose, the employees are the first to see it and they have a responsibility to call it out and find solutions when it becomes apparent.” 

Canadian businesses have some unique challenges when it comes to implementing sustainability practices – starting with its history and demographics.

“Canada has a very different history with its indigenous population than does the U.S., and there are many more considerations and complexities when operating or building infrastructure in major parts of the country,” according to Rotchild.

One example would be Canada’s lucrative fossil fuels sector, the projects of which have often sparked protests as the country’s First Nations have said such developments encroach on their lands. At times, compromises have been reached to ensure Canada’s indigenous groups have a stake in pipeline or hydropower projects so they can have a voice and share the economic benefits. Disputes over various oil and natural gas pipelines continue to be contentious, however.

Rotchild also noted that Canada also long has been considered a responsible developer of natural resources; transitioning toward low carbon-based resources could have a significant impact on Canadian workers and the economy. Visible shifts are underway: Last month, a Calgary-based company got the green light to build what could be Canada’s largest solar power installation in oil-rich Alberta.

In addition, “Many leading American firms operate in Canada, but their Canadian subsidiaries often do not have enough resources or autonomy to carry out the same sustainability programs that they do in the U.S.,” he added.

Therein lies plenty of opportunities for CBSR to become a valuable partner in the Canadian business community.

An area CBSR is trying to address is improving sustainable practices in supply chains; Canada's public buying takes place at a more decentralized level than other OECD countries, according to Rotchild. A new system is emerging that involves companies partnering with government agencies to incorporate social and environmental criteria into public procurement decisions, he added.

CBSR is participating in this process through its work as a founding member of the Coalition for the Advancement of Sustainable Procurement (CASP) along with the Center for Greening Government (CGG), Espace Québécois de Concertation Sur Pratiques D’Approvisonnement Responsible (ECPAR), HP Canada, Municipal Collaboration for Sustainable Procurement (MCSP), Ontario Public Buyers Association (OPBA) and the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO).     

“Influencing more centralization and sustainability thinking can reward sustainability leaders at the bid process and lead to improved social and environmental impacts,” Rotchild said. 

Earlier this year, CBSR began sharing some of the nation’s best strategies through a new Do Business Like A Canadian platform as a way to discuss national sustainability-related challenges and “create constructive spaces to discuss values-based solutions,” according to Rotchild. Several Canadian business case studies were developed as part of the campaign to launch the initiative, he added.

Don’t forget: In a few weeks, we’ll be hosting 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What's Next, October 29-30, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C. Together, our 90-plus speakers promise to make this two-day event one that is fast-paced, high-octane and invaluable with their perspectives on the latest in the environmental, social and governance (ESG) community. We're proud to have CBSR as a partner for this event.

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

Image credit: Alex Shutin/Unsplash

The fight against ocean plastic pollution is heating up, with companies, cities, states, and new public-private partnerships all vowing to take action to reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in the natural environment and, ultimately, our oceans. But there’s one entity that has failed to act: The United States federal government. That, alongside the growing awareness that we need rapid action, is why environmentalists are increasingly pushing for national legislation.

"The U.S. has often been an international leader on environmental issues, but unfortunately it’s falling behind other countries on addressing the plastics crisis,” Christy Leavitt, campaign director for the NGO Oceana, said in a press statement.

Leavitt recently gave testimony on this topic to Congress, the branch of the U.S. government that many hope can lead on federal action. Right now, such a sense of urgency is missing.  Cities have certainly acted: For example, San Francisco’s plastic bag ban eliminated 5 million bags per month, and shops at the city’s international airport no longer offer plastic water bottles; several states have passed similar measures as well.

“U.S. cities, towns, counties and states are not waiting for federal action and are instead leading the way in regulating single-use plastics,” Leavitt said. “The federal government should learn from these actions and implement national policies to stem the flow of plastic into our oceans."

Plastic pollution has, in the past few years, become a major global concern. The stakes are high, as a study released in 2016 by the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy shows our stark future. If we don’t make drastic changes soon, by 2050 our oceans could have more plastic in them than fish. There’s evidence now that even rainfall contains plastic, which is also now found in the most remote places on the planet.

“Despite the ocean’s importance to life on Earth and the livelihoods of billions of people around the world, humanity has altered or destroyed marine ecosystems and driven marine species to the brink of extinction,” Leavitt said. “And now, as one scientist put it, the oceans are literally spitting plastic back at us with every wave.”

Thus far, there has been some meaningful corporate action on this front, with broad partnerships being formed. These include the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, which includes dozens of companies representing 20 percent of all global plastic packaging production; the Alliance to End Plastic Waste; and NextWave Plastics, whose member companies are developing a supply chain for ocean-bound plastics. Large brands are taking their own ambitious steps, like PepsiCo’s recently announced target to reduce its use of virgin plastic by 35 percent by 2025.

But from the perspective of many NGOs, more needs to be done.

“Corporations responsible for the throwaway packaging must redesign their production and start investing in alternative packaging materials and delivery systems that are ecologically sustainable for the people and the planet,” Beau Baconguis, regional plastics campaigner for the advocacy group GAIA Asia Pacific, said in a press statement.

Even taken together, these efforts are not yet nearly enough. There are thousands of companies of all sizes that utilize single-use plastic, including many that are not consumer-facing and thus have less pressure to change their practices. That is why there is a need for governments to set standards and limit the use of single-use plastic, so that bad actors do not negate the positive impacts of ethical and sustainable brands.

This becomes even more important when taking into consideration the fact that the plastic industry has been fighting against bans, or any meaningful action, even as it professes to want to solve the problem.

For example, an investigation published in The Intercept in July uncovered how the American Progressive Bag Alliance—a lobbying group of the Plastics Industry Association, which includes Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Phillips, DowDuPont and Novolex as members—has backed bills that restrict plastic bans or regulations in states like Tennessee. We need strong national legislation to preempt the plastic industry from spreading their dangerous rhetoric across the country—and putting the natural environment at danger.

There are many ways this could be done. Indonesia, the world’s second largest source of oceanic plastic pollution, is considering a plastic tax alongside an expansion in incineration, which carries its own concerns. The European Parliament recently approved a wide-ranging ban on single-use plastics.

We know ocean plastic is causing a global crisis. Now it's time to find solutions. While partnerships and moves like PepsiCo’s are welcome, if companies really want to show their commitment to reducing plastic waste, they should push for strong legislation in Congress that is similar to what is unfolding in the European Union and Indonesia. Only then can we begin to solve this huge, global problem.

Image credit: Brian Yurasits/Unsplash

As sustainability has shifted from a “nice to have” to a “must have” corporate mandate, alignment with the SDGs has been positioned by many as a method to help boost corporate sustainability credibility.

On one hand, it’s progress that the private sector is improving its ESG (environmental, social and governance) performance and looking at its impact on the world. But at the same time, we are also seeing SDG-washing, where companies use the UN SDGs logo and claim to be sustainable. How do you prevent this?

The business case

As public opinion of business has shifted, especially in recent years, CEOs and boards now understand their responsibility is not only to their shareholders, but also to their employees, communities and the environment.

In theory, aligning with the SDGs fits within the broader responsible business movement. While a focus on the Global Goals creates opportunities to enhance a company’s sustainability strategy and disclosures, these goals were not specifically intended to fit within a corporate structure. They were developed as goals for countries, not corporations, so companies must be thoughtful in their alignment approach to support the broader national goals while maintaining a connection to their existing corporate and sustainability objectives.

A sustainability-first alignment approach

To make alignment meaningful and impactful, engagement with the SDGs must be rooted in a company’s core competencies and should be pursued as part of a strategic sustainability platform, not a substitute for one. Sustainable business creates opportunities for innovation, helps identify and mitigate risk and creates opportunities for leadership, growth and new partnerships. Stakeholders are already asking for this data. Investors want ESG disclosures to inform them on risk management and growth opportunities from all aspects of the business. NGOs review ESG reports to understand how companies contribute to social and environmental issues they champion.

Without a strong sustainability strategy in place, aligning with the SDGs puts companies at risk for “goal-washing.” It’s easy for companies to get negative publicity from this popular movement when they do not put the processes and operations in place to accomplish these crucial goals.

Following the UN’s Economic and Social Council recent review of progress (or lack of progress in some cases) against the SDGs, it’s also important to remember new Global Goals will likely be put in place soon. With just over ten years left for this set of goals, having or creating a corporate sustainability strategy that supports core business and policy objectives is critical to ensuring consistency of operations and communications for decades to come, regardless of what the next set of goals includes.

Five steps to alignment

There are several steps that corporate leaders can take to evaluate and execute to ensure aligning with the SDGs makes sense for the business:

1. Perform an ESG materiality assessment. This will provide clarity on the issues that stakeholders, including investors, need to know when making decisions about a company. Although there is much debate on the methodology and cost-benefit of such analyses, they do provide important insights that help companies prioritize policies and actions and which SDGs to potentially align with.
2. Stakeholder engagement is paramount. As much as we all dislike silos, it is often how we operate. It’s critical to engage internal stakeholders across your company with different points of view and responsibilities as it is to hear from external stakeholders such as investors, consumers and NGO’s. As part of this assessment or to complement a previous assessment, reach out to stakeholders. Know which SDGs are most relevant to your corporate goals and business strategy and ask for input into their biggest concerns.
3. Start small. Reflect. Be realistic. Can your company really help support 17 Global Goals and their 169 targets? Being thoughtful in which goals and how many you can successfully align with will benefit you in the short and long-term.
4. Use material goals and targets. Data is at the core of sustainability strategy development and communications, and sound goals based on material issue-driven data provide a consistent framework to help guide decisions about the goals and how to implement them across the enterprise.  
5. Be transparent about your decision making. Whether you align or choose not to align, it’s important to be honest about your decision-making process and what alignment or going a different route does for your company.
    

Image credit: Global Goals for Sustainable Development/Facebook; Mary Mazzoni/TriplePundit

TriplePundit is covering the U.N. General Assembly and Climate Week NYC through the weekend. You can follow our coverage here. 

A resounding theme of Climate Week 2019 has been to find opportunities crucial for taking on climate action now. And some of these solutions are low-hanging fruit – as in being smarter with how we consume energy.

New research shows that energy efficiency measures can slash U.S. energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 50 percent by 2050, moving the country halfway towards its climate goals.

The report, by the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), offers a road map for dramatically reducing energy waste. It identifies ambitious but cost-effective and technically possible measures that would avert emissions of nearly 2,500 million metric tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide — equivalent to all emissions from cars, trucks, homes, and commercial buildings in 2050.

“Energy efficiency is an urgently needed climate solution,” ACEEE executive director Steven Nadel, a report co-author, said in a press release. “It can deliver swift, robust emissions cuts. We cannot wait to take action.”

That may partly satisfy impatient activists like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg and the estimated 4 million people inspired to join her on September 20 for what was likely the largest climate protest in world history. Thunberg, speaking to the UN General Assembly earlier this week, scolded world leaders for “empty words,” telling them, in a voice fierce with emotion: “For 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight?”

For the ACEEE, the solutions are well in sight, and its report, Halfway There: Energy Efficiency Can Cut Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Half by 2050, identifies 11 opportunities and related policies to achieve the necessary energy savings needed to reduce total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 100 percent by 2050.

Transportation, which in the U.S. is currently in the midst of a slow transition to all-electric vehicles, would deliver nearly half (46 percent) of the emissions reductions. Buildings would deliver a third and industry a fifth. For energy savings, building would deliver 40 percent of the total, followed by transportation (32 percent) and industry (27 percent).

In each of these three sectors, the report outlines what the next 30 years could look like if industry leaders seize the opportunities. Within the transportation sector, a significant shift to electric cars and trucks and continued fuel economy gains under new standards could reduce vehicle carbon emissions by approximately 50 percent. Less driving in cars and light trucks, improved freight system efficiency, and more-efficient airplanes could further cut emissions.

Within buildings, new homes and commercial offices could cut their emissions by 70 percent with efficient design and the use of cleaner electricity. Existing homes and buildings can slash emissions with energy-efficient upgrades, smart control technologies, and electrification of heating and cooling. Adding to total emissions cuts are updated efficiency standards for appliances and equipment and growth in the Energy Star program.

Finally, the industrial sector could deliver substantial emissions cuts with strategic energy management, smart manufacturing, industrial process improvements (including electrification strategies), changes in feedstocks and new process technologies and materials.

Energy efficiency measures have already proved to be an effective tool for climate mitigation, noted Kathleen Gaffney, co-author of the report: “It’s already made an immense difference. Without efficiency measures implemented since 2000, global emissions in 2017 would have been 12 percent higher.”

“The good news is that we can start right now by investing more in energy-efficient appliances, buildings, vehicles, and industrial plants,” Lowell Ungar, ACEEE senior policy advisor and report co-author, added. “But to achieve maximum emissions reductions, we need political and financial investments that go far beyond business as usual. If we do so, the 2050 payoff will be impressive.”

The report says government policies and programs alone would deliver about $700 billion a year in energy savings by 2050. Plus, the authors note, such investment will create more jobs, boost grid resilience, reduce air pollution and improve people’s health.

Business leaders who want to be aggressive on energy efficiency, however, face an uphill battle with the Trump administration, which is moving to weaken efficiency standards for lightbulbs, appliances and vehicles.

Image credit: Pixabay