Search

By Dr Alison Blyth & David Evans

Most environmentally conscious citizens are already well aware of the problems microplastics create for our waterways and oceans. But what we think we know about microplastics now might only be the tip of the iceberg.

New research is uncovering the impact microplastics may be having on our terrestrial environments and food chains.

What we know:

Microplastics are ubiquitous in the oceans, and have been found in 73% of North Atlantic fish studied.  Detectable amounts have been found in tap-water.

What we are learning:

Microplastics are not just a threat to our oceans. They are finding their way into our soils and may be working their way up the terrestrial food chain as well.

Our Growing Plastic Predicament

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges we face. Plastic production has skyrocketed since 1950 and it is estimated that by 2050 there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish.

Since plastic does not decompose naturally, most of the plastic we have produced to date is building up in our landfills or our natural environment. Only 12% of plastics have been disposed of by incineration, while a shockingly low 9% are recycled. While plastic pollution from everyday plastics like disposable cups or bags are an eyesore and pose their fair share of environmental issues, microplastics pose a more challenging threat.

Microplastics are classified into two groups:

Primary microplastics are things like plastic beads used in the cosmetic industry.

Secondary microplastics are fragments that have broken down from larger objects – although plastics don’t rot away like organic materials, they do physically break into smaller pieces with exposure to light and weathering.

Both of these microplastics share a common threat: the smaller plastics are, the more difficult they are to identify, track, and clean up.

Steps are now being taken to ban sources of primary microplastics. Multiple countries including Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Italy, have banned microbeads for cosmetic and personal care use, while many major companies such as Unilever, Proctor & Gamble, L’Oreal have pledged to phase them out. However, secondary particles are an inevitable by-product of the plastic pollution in our environments, and will continue to be created for as long as plastic pollution exists

Research on microplastics is a growing field, with multiple groups working on these pollutants in the ocean, and increasingly in freshwater contexts. Until now little consideration has been given to the accumulation of microplastics on land, and especially in our soils, but this is an area of concern that we need to pay more attention to.

Microplastics in Our Soils

Is our farmland at risk of microplastic pollution?

The answer lies in two agricultural practices: the use of plastic mulches and the application of sewage sludge to fields.

Plastic Mulches

Plastic mulching is the process of using plastic sheeting to cover soil, which improves temperature control and water loss, as well as supressing weed growth. It is a cheap, low tech way to manage the soil, and has become extremely popular across the world.

Unfortunately, it also means that a large amount of plastic is left lying in the open, exposed to UV and weathering. Even with responsible disposal at the end of the mulch’s lifetime (which is often only one year), exposure to sunlight and the elements means that plastic sheeting can become fragile and start to break up into microplastic fragments.

Sewage Sludge

Whereas plastic mulch as a source of microplastics is self-evident, the risks of using sewage sludge as a fertiliser might not be. How does applying waste organic matter to the soil lead to microplastic accumulation?

The issue lies in how waste-water treatment works.

Many microplastics, including ubiquitous fibres from synthetic clothing, enter the environment via domestic and industrial waste-water streams. In a treatment plant, these streams are filtered, removing most microplastics and other solid contaminants (although there is a question mark about how effectively fibres and the smallest microplastics are filtered out).

However, when microplastics are filtered out of the water in a treatment plant, they are accumulated into the sludge. This is the same sludge that is then applied to farmlands as a biosolid fertiliser.

Through this process we are effectively removing microplastics from the aquatic environment, and dumping them back onto our soils.

The extent of this problem depends on biosolid use in different countries. Some countries, such as Switzerland, ban the use of human biosolids as fertilizer due to concerns about pathogens and heavy metal contamination. Other countries, including much of the EU actively encourage the use of properly treated sludge as agricultural fertilizer, and cite strict regulations governing treatment and potential pollutants to demonstrate its safety and eco-credentials.

None of these regulations consider microplastic pollution.

As this is an under-researched area, the fate of microplastics deposited in our soils, and their implications for the terrestrial environment are largely unknown. We don’t even know at this stage what volume of microplastics are being deposited on agricultural soils, although one study estimated that between 63,000 and 430,000 tons of microplastics are added annually to European farmlands ( tons for North America).

Plastics in Our Food Chain?

An obvious question about microplastics in soils is where do they go next?

This is exactly what scientists are trying to find out. In a Frontiers paper in 2017, soil biologist Professor Matthias Rillig suggested that land management practices, soil composition, climate, and soil biology will all influence microplastic fate.

The chemical composition and physical characteristics of microplastics will also play a role. One issue identified is that experimental research to date has focused on microplastic beads. However, with an increasing number of countries banning the use of these beads, the interaction of other types of microplastics with environmental factors is likely more important.

Microplastic fibres are now believed to be one of the most common forms of microplastic pollution, and these will respond differently within soils than do microplastic beads.

In particular, can they enter the food chain, water resources, or animals?

Research on microplastics in aquatic environments does give us some clues. We do know that as soon as microplastics enter the environment, they start to interact with the surrounding chemistry and biology, and build up what scientists have named an ecocorona.

This is where the plastic particle becomes a nucleus for a film of organic matter, chemical compounds, and microbial growth. A key implication of this is that the presence of an ecocorona increases the likelihood that plastic will be eaten by animals – from the point of view of a scavenger or grazer in the water or soil, it is not a piece of inedible rubbish, but a ball of food.

In soil environments, research has already shown that microplastics are ingested by earthworms, reducing their biological fitness and lifespan. In a 2017 paper in Nature Scientific Reports, researchers from Mexico showed that microplastic particles increased in number up the food chain from soil to earthworms to chickens. These initial findings suggest that more research is urgently needed to find out the extent of microplastic contamination in our farmlands and their animals.

Microplastics – an unfolding mystery

Microplastics are a known threat to our oceans but we are just not uncovering their potential threat to terrestrial environments.

Recent research has shown that microplastics are affecting animals even in the remotest corners of our planet. Now we must also investigate their impact much closer to home. Is it possible that microplastics will find their way back to us via our own farms?

 

Dr Alison Blyth is a geochemist working in earth and environmental sciences.

David Evans is an environmentalist and the co-founder of Tern Goods –A reusable alternatives company specializing in recycled and repurposed shopping bags invented to replace single use plastics.

 

Image Credit 1) ensoplastics.com 2) downtoearth.org

Oil, gas and coal companies are at risk of losing trillions of investment dollars in the coming years if they do not start transitioning away from fossil fuels, says at the financial think tank, Carbon Tracker.

According to its latest report, analysts project that energy companies will be looking at a loss of about $1.6 trillion in investment dollars in the next 17 years if they continue to base their operations on current emissions policies.

“There is a clear danger zone above a 2°C scenario where excess capex (capital expenditure) and CO² emissions need to be avoided,” the analysts warned, noting that the ‘carbon budget’ proposed by the International Energy Agency is set to limit the earth’s temperature to 2 C and the concentration of greenhouse gasses to 450 parts per million of CO2. It also calls for capping “long-term temperature increase at 4°C” by lowering further emissions by 2050.

Carbon Tracker analysts point out that further expansion of the fossil fuel-based energy sector through new investments such as shale gas and coal mining puts the effort of limiting staying below the 2°C threshold at risk. But just as importantly, they stress, it opens up the possibility of “stranded assets” -- investments that are lost or devalued by changing policies, regulations and energy appetite. Last year’s drop in renewable energy prices, which plummeted below oil prices is one example of such a shift that was propelled by global markets. But policies that are later implemented to cut fossil-fuel dependence and to meet that 2050 threshold could also put investors’ dollars at risk.

And oil and gas investors shouldn’t be fooled by the fact that they have a lower impact on carbon emissions than coal, researchers warn. Financial risk still abounds for investors looking to squeeze by tighter emission regulations and declining markets in the future.

‘Stress tests’ are critical tools for nations and companies alike
Carbon Tracker sets out a series of “stress tests” to help companies, institutional investors, governments and advisors determine whether their investments will be in line with recommended policies set by agencies like the IEA. It points out that a number of companies and organizations have already implemented the “2°C stress test” and are taking steps to ensure their mission and policies support long-term reduction of greenhouse gasses. In the United Kingdom, the Environment Agency Pension Fund began divesting its investments in fossil fuel energy in 2015 to show its support for the IEA’s guidelines.

In the United States, an increasing number of cities and organizations are divesting as well. In January, New York City announced its plans to pull its money out of the fossil fuel market. Its announcement followed a similar statement by the state of New York, which also was invested in oil and gas stocks.

But analysts note that it’s companies in countries like the U.S. and Russia, which have opened the door to increased capital expenditure in fossil fuel energy that run the greatest risk of creating a stranded asset scenario for investors. The Trump administration’s recent rollback of regulations directed at reducing carbon emssions and the decision to expand oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) may pose unique challenges for investors as global energy development turns toward more sustainable, renewable options.

Image: Flickr/Carbon Visuals

Solar energy fans haven't had much to cheer about during the Trump Administration, especially after the President's recent imposition of tariffs on steel and solar panels. Nevertheless, some analysts see healthy demand persisting in the US solar market. That's partly due to keen interest on the part of US businesses eager to polish their green cred with renewable energy.

Demand could even pass expectations if the cost of installing solar panels continues to drop, helping to offset negative effects from the new tariffs. In one recent development on that score, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has been testing a new installation system that could keep pushing down the cost of ground-mounted solar farms. That adds more weight to the argument that now is still a good time to invest in a solar installation, tariff or not.

The soft costs of solar energy

Analysts have pointed out that Trump's new solar tariff only impacts the "hard" cost of solar energy, namely, the panels themselves. "Soft" costs account for much of the overall cost of a new solar installation. That can include anything from marketing and administration to transportation, permitting and labor costs. So, at least theoretically a savings on soft costs could offset any upward movement on hard costs.

One place where hard and soft costs intersect is the racking system needed to position solar panels on the ground or on a rooftop. These systems are generally made of steel, and that could be impacted by the new Trump tariff on imported steel. If the new racking system being tested at NREL pans out, though, labor and associated costs could drop significantly -- and the steel tariff would be a moot issue, too.

A new solar racking system

The new racking system is being developed by the startup Powerfield. The system is designed to overcome three main hurdles.

First, the racks are lightweight, which could mean a significant savings on the cost of materials as well as transportation. Instead of the conventional "Erector Set" system of steel mounted in a concrete base, the system is composed of plastic shaped in a large U. To keep them in place, the plastic shapes are filled with several hundred pounds of any available material, such as sand, dirt or rocks.

If that sounds familiar, you may be thinking of the temporary plastic traffic barriers that can be hauled into place and filled with water for stability, then drained for transportation elsewhere. Powerfield anticipates that between ease of setup and transportability, its new racking system could be used for disaster relief and other temporary installations as well as permanent sites.

With the use of plastic, the new system circumvents the impact of the new steel tariff. In addition, it opens up the potential for using recycled or reclaimed material, including construction debris as well as plastic feedstock.

The second advantage is that the new racks can be installed rapidly without specialized equipment such as pile drivers or concrete mixers. Without the need for a dug foundation, the system could also help simplify the permitting process, which would also help to manage costs.

And third, the solar panels attach to the rack with a proprietary clipping system that requires no special tools or training. That opens the door for community groups and other non-profits to recruit volunteers to install solar energy projects.

The Powerfield system took about a year to bring to the testing stage, which NREL expects to last about six months. In one recent trial, the lab deployed a crew of six inexperienced workers to install 56 panels. The entire exercise took under five hours, and Powerfield anticipates event that time could be shortened.

The next steps include determining exactly how much weight is needed to resist a "worst case scenario" 120-mile-per-hour winds, and analyzing the performance of the solar panels in the new rack.

How low can solar energy go?

Some solar energy analysts have observed that solar companies had ample time to prepare for the new tariff, enabling them to cushion customers from extreme price shocks.

In addition, state-level actions and utility initiatives could have a greater impact on the installed cost of solar energy, though in some cases those actions are designed to push costs up.

Either way, Forbes contributor Ken Silverstein recently noted that the installed cost of utility scale solar energy has dropped 86% since 2009, and the cost of smaller installations has also fallen sharply. In other words, a slight uptick in costs would not necessarily dissuade companies from investing in solar.

Silverstein provides the example of Amazon, which is forging ahead with a massive solar program as part of a 100% renewable energy goal. Apple is another high profile solar energy investor.

A 2017 study by Lazard also adds weight to the trend, providing statistical evidence that coal and nuclear power plants are now more expensive to build than their renewable energy counterparts.

In another emerging wrinkle, oil and gas companies are finally beginning to hedge their bets on fossil energy, and they are beginning to invest serious money in wind and solar. Two recent examples are Shell and BP.

Last fall Kent Moors of the website oilprice.com took a deep dive into the future and came up with an additional set of reasons why solar energy is bound to grow in the US.

Do read the full piece for detail, but the gist of it is that NREL and other Energy Department offices are still deeply engaged in solar grid integration through the SunShot initiative, despite Trump administration policies favoring fossil fuel:

The longer-range goals also focused on a new objective – the reliability of electricity availability. SunShot is now working on advancing grid integration approaches to enable two-way power flows, increase demand response, and optimize charging of electric vehicles.

Such advances, combined with low-cost battery storage, could enable economically competitive solar to be more widely deployed nationwide, while also allowing a greater integration with other renewable power systems.

Like Silverstein, Moors emphasizes that utility scale solar has fallen much more quickly and sharply than small, residential scale solar. Considering that Powerfield anticipates a 20 percent savings from its new racking system, it looks like small scale solar could soon catch up.

Image (screenshot): via Powerfield.

 

Many many major businesses have already adopted renewable energy, but even the latecomers still have a good chance to stake out a position in the clean power vanguard. On the federal level, President Trump has pulled back on national decarbonization goals, leaving a leadership gap that the private sector is eager to fill. There are also opportunities on a local level, as  some utilities are offering renewable energy options that go go above and beyond the requirements of their own state governments.

The recent actions by utilities are especially interesting because they indicate that the US economy will continue to decarbonize, even though the Trump Administration remains determined to prop up the coal, oil and gas industries.

Electricity companies take the renewable energy pledge

Midwest Energy News has been tracking the clean power trend among 17 energy companies in its region, and found that a significant majority of 13 have set their own targets for renewable energy, emissions reduction or both.

According to Reporter Andy Balaskovitz, these targets amount to a no-brainer from a bottom line perspective, mainly because the cost of renewable energy has been dropping. The availability of low cost natural gas also dovetails with emissions reduction goals, though the lifecycle impacts of natural gas undercut its "cleaner" reputation.

One standout example is Iowa's mid MidAmerican Energy. Although Iowa's renewable energy standard is almost 35 years out of date, MidAmerican has set a 100 percent renewable energy target.

The Consumers Energy example

Balaskovitz makes the point that utilities prefer to set their own standards because they can set their own deadlines and smooth out rate impacts, but direct bottom line considerations are only part of the equation. Utilities that set their own standards can also claim all the good publicity for making progress on their benchmarks.

In addition, Balaskovitz notes that utilities like Consumers recognize the value of clean power to shareholders. For now that includes natural gas, though renewable energy is beginning to edge gas out of the picture in some markets:

Investor-owned utilities and their national trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, say they are adjusting to changing customer and corporate attitudes and declining costs of renewables and natural gas.

...And appealing to shareholders means investing in utility-owned generation, including natural gas, solar and wind.

Balaskovitz provides the example of the Michigan utility Consumers Energy to illustrate this proactive clean power strategy at work.

Back in 2012 the company fought against a proposed state renewable energy standard, but just last February the company met -- and beat --- a similar proposal. The new state proposal calls for 30% renewable energy. Consumers Energy pledged 40% by 2040 and also promised to cut emissions by 80%.

In contrast, the current state requirement is only 15% by 2021. Utilities in the state are on track to meet that modest goal, but now Consumers Energy stands out from the pack.

In yet another bad sign for President Trump's pro-coal messaging, in 2016 Consumers Energy closed seven coal power plants to jumpstart its clean energy goals.

Good publicity for renewable energy fans

Last week Consumers Energy provided a good example of the media opportunities offered by self imposed renewable energy standards, when it announced new clean power partnerships with GM and Switch:

General Motors and Switch are the first participants in a new Consumers Energy program to help large businesses use large renewable energy sources. Both companies are now matching 100 percent of their electric use at key operations in Michigan with wind-generated power.

 

Although Switch is not a household world, GM's participation is significant. The company has been a renewable energy early adopter and sees itself as both a leader and mentor. Dane Parker, General Motors vice president of Sustainable Workplaces, emphasized that point in announcing the new partnership:

 

Corporations have a leadership opportunity to help accelerate and scale renewable energy, making it more accessible and affordable for everyone. The Consumers Energy program will help General Motors meet its commitment to source 100 percent renewable energy at all global operations by 2050, while reducing emissions in our Michigan communities and making the grid greener.

What about nukes?

Some energy analysts lean on nuclear energy as the most efficient means of large scale, rapid decarbonization, but that strategy appears to be situational.

In countries with strong central policy makers there is still a window for nuclear energy, but that's not the case here in the US. Electricity demand is relatively flat, renewable energy resources have yet to be tapped out, and local opposition makes the idea of widespread re-nuclearization politically impossible.

Although the US continued its nuclear programs under President Obama as well as Trump, it is unlikely that utility customers and investors would favor a decarbonization strategy that depends on building fleets of new nuclear power plants.

For nations where demand is expected to grow rapidly, there is still a policy window for nuclear energy. That's a realistic outcome in nations where powerful central governments set policy regardless of community concerns, although global solar capacity is actually beginning to catch up with nuclear.

 

 

 

 

Armed with a giant spreadsheet, Laurel Peacock attempts to create a common language out of the hundreds of environmental, social and governance (ESG) data points that ratings agencies are crunching to assess NRG Energy.

Though she is plagued by questionnaire fatigue and occasionally thwarted by research firms with sloppy and outdated methodologies, there is a sense of optimism and excitement when exploring the practice of sustainability reporting with Peacock.

“It’s not going away. It’s going more mainstream,” says Peacock, senior sustainability manager for sustainability reporting for the New Jersey-based company for the past five years. “I think it’s an amazing time for us sustainability professionals.”

A member of the Corporate Responsibility Association and co-chair of the group’s Ratings and Rankings Thought Leadership Council, Peacock speaks frequently at industry conferences, including Globe Series in Vancouver, where she appeared alongside a Moody’s energy analyst, an S&P Global research executive and a partner of a buy-side firm managing $40 billion Canadian in assets.

Responsible for NRG’s voluntary reporting, Peacock dedicates nearly 20 percent of her time to information and data management, with questionnaires often containing 50 to 300 ESG indicators.  She works alongside executives from Finance, Investor Relations and Legal, and has input on which sustainability information is included in the NYSE-listed company’s 10-Ks.

“You have to pay very close attention,” said Peacock, adding that some ESG data aggregators err by presenting out of date or improperly classified information even after the company submits corrections.

Questionnaires have nuances, with different measurement units and time horizons, cautioned Peacock, adding, “We want to make sure we’re comparing apples to apples.”

Not all ratings schemes are created equal.  Among those prioritized by NRG is CDP, which she calls a “table stakes player” due to its focus on climate and water, and because the data is highly visible in Bloomberg terminals.

While acting as the primary interface between external research firms and the energy company, Peacock said much of her focus is among her peers and the leadership, talking about how they manage risk and identifying how to report on that externally.

“You have to learn the language of finance and the language of business,” she advised. “From a practical standpoint, you have to ask the right questions that can bring down a lot of barriers.”

Through dialog with the C-suite, Peacock said it became apparent there was concern over the definition of materiality in sustainability, versus long-standing financial definitions of materiality watched closely by investors. NRG opted to highlight its most important indicators in sustainability reporting as “key issues” rather than using “material” as an adjective.

As the only corporation represented on a Globe Series panel dominated by raters and investors, Peacock was confident, saying, “We really do believe that transparency builds trust.”

 

 

By Luka Erceg

The infrastructure gap is real, and it’s looming. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the world will need to spend $7.5 trillion on water infrastructure by 2030 to meet current needs. A booming population and declining resources are intensifying these needs, but not every problem calls for a costly solution. Natural infrastructure is a practice — and not necessarily a physical structure — that is quietly gaining traction as a foundation for many of our infrastructure requirements. Natural, or ‘green,’ infrastructure relies on ecosystems to produce the services that we normally rely on built, or ‘grey,’ infrastructure to perform. Through vegetated ditches specially designed for absorption, bioswales can manage storm water overflows from pavement at a fraction of the cost of digging underground tunnels. Green roofs can stop runoff before it reaches the streets, with the added benefit of decreasing facility energy demands for cooling.

Reduced costs — for both capital expenditures and operational expenditures — are the biggest benefits of using natural infrastructure in place of grey infrastructure. For example, planting an oyster reef to clean contaminated waterways, such as with the Billion Oyster Project in New York City, requires a lot less capital and management than building and running a massive water treatment facility. Reducing the capex needed to perform storm water management and wastewater treatment is a huge boon for developing countries and cash-strapped governments. Natural systems, aside from requiring less capital, are also usually more regenerative and self-sustaining, decreasing maintenance costs in time and money. That said, large-scale installations like the Billion Oyster Project are not often replicable. We need to look at a new age of infrastructure management that reflects the sobering reality of our capital-constrained world but still allows us to meet our inevitably growing needs.

Small elements can have a big impact. While green infrastructure is typically used as a replacement for manmade grey infrastructure, components of natural systems can be incorporated into our built systems with minimal disruption to existing operations. Wastewater treatment plants, like other industrial sanitation systems, typically use chemical disinfectants, such as chlorine, as part of their treatment process. The chemicals can generate disinfection byproducts (DBPs) that are sometimes classified as endocrine disrupting chemicals, or even carcinogens. DBPs in wastewater treatment plant effluent can enter our potable water stream, creating health hazards for humans and other organisms. As a result, wastewater treatment plant managers are or should be seeking sustainable substitutes.

 Nature is the original problem solver, and incorporating inspiration from nature into operations can help reduce the negative externalities from grey infrastructure construction and utilization like chemical contamination. Bioremediation applies that philosophy by using microorganisms to degrade targeted pollutants, including oil and other petroleum products, solvents and pesticides that might be found in soil or groundwater. Strategies can boost nature’s processing power by creating a more favorable environment that enhances the activity of microbes already living at the contaminated sites. Specialized microbes can even be added to devour the contaminants. In the context of wastewater treatment, sludge-eating microbes feed off the organic waste at the plant, converting biosolids into water and gas. Minimizing the volume of biosolids that need to be processed through bioremediation reduces strain on operations, providing a natural alternative to harsh chemicals or new infrastructure.

 Along with many others, water and wastewater industries are recognizing that nature holds the most effective solutions to the host of problems we throw at it. Dow Chemical, one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the world, has put natural infrastructure at the heart of its sustainability goals and has used reconstructed wetlands for wastewater treatment at one of its Texas plants.

As industries become more aware of the potential for nature to solve the problems that humans create – with solutions that are cost effective and sustainable – we will start to see more corporations and governments prioritizing these natural solutions.

Luka Erceg is President and CEO of Houston-based Drylet, a wastewater remediation technology company. He is a 20-year veteran of the specialty chemicals, utility and energy technology industries.

Photo: Drylet

 

 

From left: Neil Hawkins of Dow, Gwen Migita of Caesars and Brent Bergeron of Goldcorp

Despite every nation on earth voting to adopt the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals less than three years ago, one early adopter wants more UN support.

“I don’t see a campaign. I see a cacophony of things coming out of the UN,” said Dow Chemical chief sustainability officer Neil Hawkins, an early adopter of the SDGs who implores the UN to use change-management practices to drive rapid action among governments globally.

“I think the UN needs to be in there with them,” said Hawkins of the partnerships between NGOs, government and business necessary to address what he called the “big hairy problems” addressed in the 17 SDGs, adopted by the 193 members of the UN in 2015.

The $20 billion Midland, Michigan, chemicals giant, which became the world’s largest material sciences company after acquiring DuPont, has used the SDGs to drive collaboration on issues impossible to tackle as a single company, said Hawkins, referencing clean water prototypes that need to scale to make significant impact. He made the comments at Globe Forum, a sustainability conference in Vancouver.

Beyond driving partnerships, Dow’s most tangible use of the SDGs involves storytelling, said Hawkins.

“It puts a context around your research programs and your product offerings,” he said, adding that investors, senior leadership, the board of directors and employees are key audiences benefitting from seeing issues like light-weighting of vehicles and food preservation technology through the SDG framework.

For the Vancouver-based mining company Goldcorp, the SDGs allowed EVP Brent Bergeron to ask whether the human aspects of their operations were being considered as much as the environmental. Using the Global Goals as a lens allows the gold producer to emphasize positive impacts to communities where they mine, such as access to employment, upgraded regional infrastructure, and the royalties and taxes paid to municipalities.

With sustainability is now being stressed at all levels of management, including local mine general managers whose bonus compensation is tied to ESG, Goldcorp has benefitted from a faster pace of innovation, including work on mining technology that does not require water, and an all-electric mine that does not rely on diesel engines.

“The pressure to conserve water is going up, not down,” said Bergeron, adding a benefit to the innovation is delivering water savings well ahead of regulators requiring action.

Acting ahead of regulators, with the SDGs as guide, is also being seen in the gaming industry, says Gwen Migita, social impact & inclusion vice president, chief sustainability officer, Caesars Entertainment.

While the Las Vegas-based company has built context-based goals into its business planning for years, including Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, much of the current SDG work involves the social aspects of operating in a region that hosts 40 million tourists annually.

A coalition that includes competitors and nonprofits is tackling human trafficking, homeless youth, healthcare for first-generation immigrants, long-term mental health care and other issues seemingly far afield from running casinos.

“It's not just about doing the right thing,” said Migita, who sees benefits to the business including a better pipeline of recruits to work for Caesars’ 14 brands and 400 operations, some of which are in states far more conservative than Nevada and more likely to enact regulations if industry does not act first.

Dave Armon is CMO, 3BL Media, and President, Corporate Responsibility Association + CR Magazine

Photo: Dave Armon

 

An investigation into claims that women are being held back in business is to be conducted by the UK government.

It will be the first “serious review” into the funding gap that women believe is stopping them from becoming business leaders in Britain.

The Treasury has committed itself to examine the challenges and will produce a report this year, which it says will be a “call to arms” for the finance industry, making funders “sit up, take notice and act” in sweeping away the barriers encountered by women requiring investment.

The announcement after 200 business leaders, entrepreneurs, MPs and academics – many of them women – issued an open national newspaper letter on International Women’s Day urging the UK government to boost female entrepreneurship.

The signatories included Samantha Cameron, former UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s wife, who is a consultant with Smythson, the stationery, leather goods and fashion products company; Baroness Brady, better known as Karren Brady, vice-chairman of West Ham United football club; and retail consultant and broadcaster Mary Portas.

They emphasised that better access to funds for women would boost the UK economy.

Two thirds of women bosses told the newspaper’s researchers that investors and banks did not take them seriously, so that nearly three quarters of these female business owners had to start up using their own money.

The Entrepreneurs Network, formed to advise and support UK businesses, said men were 86 per cent more likely than women to be venture capital-funded and 56 per cent more likely to obtain angel investment.

The Federation of Small Businesses reported that Britain was missing out on more than 12 million new businesses because so much of women’s potential remained unused, and Deloitte, the multinational professional services group, calculated that aid for female founders could add £100m ($139m, €113m) to the economy in the next ten years.

One of the 200 signatories, Sarah Akwisombe, who runs a flourishing interior design business, recalled: “A friend of mine is a female founder who has an amazing software platform. She went to get venture capital and all they told her was that she needed to have a male co-founder to be taken seriously.”

By contrast, hope is offered by Robert Jenrick, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the department playing a leading role in the review: “The greatest economic opportunity out there today is harnessing the talents of women that are currently untapped.

“This isn’t just a women’s problem. It’s a problem for everyone.”

More hope is offered by the UK broadcaster Sky. The group is introducing a paid programme, under which up to 1,000 women will be trained as engineers.

Photo: Flickr creative commons

By John Friedman 

Over the last few weeks companies have been publicly abandoning their relationships with the National Rifle Association in the wake of public sentiment and the ‘never again’ movement. Delta Airlines, which offered an NRA discount that less than 15 people used, found itself getting pushback for doing so. And FedEx found itself getting criticism for failing to do so.

And so the question is … what is the cost, the danger, the risk associated with taking a stand.

So I asked. The results were interesting. Nearly two out of three respondents - 63% - said that it would matter what the stand was, which makes sense. Depending on the issue, the reasoning goes, people will decide whether they want to do business with the company or not.

Surprisingly, even when given the choice of it being issue-specific, a quarter (25%) of respondents said that they would be more likely to want to do business with a company that took a stand, rejecting the notion that the stand itself mattered. Presumably, they respect an organization for having and using its voice, rather than sitting silently on the sidelines.

Only 13% said that they would be less likely - that they want their business without a side of advocacy, even with the choice of their decision being influenced by the issue.

These results are from a poll that I conducted myself via Twitter (which means it was only of those following a person who writes/talks/tweets about corporate responsibility), so the results are not representative or scientific. But they do indicate that for brands considering taking a stand, the upside of doing so far outweighs the risk of alienating people by not making values-based policy decisions.

So we can likely expect more and more companies to have the courage of their convictions. Because, in the eyes of almost 9 out of 10 people, it is the right thing to do—depending on the cause.

Photo: Wikipedia Commons

 

 

By Helen Bates, GivingForce

Unlimited volunteering is a new trend in corporate social responsibility. Similar to the increasingly popular policy of unlimited holiday – where employees are given unlimited vacation allowance – unlimited volunteering means giving employees unrestricted time off work to volunteer. This may seem a counterintuitive way to run a successful business, but the idea has now caught on in companies such as Virgin and Mercedes-Benz, who are reportedly very happy with their decision.

So, is unlimited volunteering something your business should be adopting?

Employer-supported volunteering is often promoted as a win-win. Non-profit organisations benefit from increased volunteer power, while employees and businesses get the chance to make a difference and access development opportunities. But employer-supported volunteering often doesn’t live up to this ideal.  A sudden influx of employees on an annual training day can be more panic-inducing than helpful for many charities, who scramble to find something for all their new volunteers to do – poorly-executed painting projects being the most infamous example. This fails to put employees’ professional skills to good use, wasting an excellent chance for development.

Unlimited volunteering could be the solution. For instance, unlimited volunteering time allows employees the flexibility to become involved with charities in the longer term – in ways that complement their skill set and professional development needs, improving their job performance, and allowing them to have a greater positive impact.

Examples of this could be volunteering as a trustee, working with a charity to improve their marketing campaigns, or helping out with financial planning over the long term. These kind of opportunities allow employees to develop skills, gain early career leadership experience, and have a long-term impact on the charity.

All without a paintbrush in sight!

Will It Benefit Employees?

An unlimited volunteering policy may work wonders for employee satisfaction.

Results of unlimited holiday policies have shown that both employees and employers report a more pleasant working environment and a culture of trust.

Certainly from Mercedes-Benz’ perspective, unlimited volunteering has many benefits:

“We are trusted to be agile with our working environment…not only are we empowered to support charities and community programmes that are close to our hearts, but we also have an unlimited amount of hours and days that we can spend during the working week to give something back…”

For anyone worried that unlimited volunteering hours will mean your employees never showing up to work, we can look again at the results of unlimited holiday policies, where employers have found no increased likelihood that such a system will be abused by workers.

Can unlimited holiday help your reputation?

Research into employer-supported volunteering has often shown low engagement by both employees and the public, who may view such schemes as little more than a PR measure.  An unlimited volunteering policy shows real commitment, and is likely to increase engagement among colleagues.

Employees are far better ambassadors for a company if they are engaged and enthusiastic.

Unlimited volunteering policies can also help attract talent. A 2015 report found that 65% of those surveyed said they would be more likely to work for an organisation which supported employee volunteering, and in 2016 The Body Shop featured on a ‘Best Perks’ list by the Independent with a mere five day paid volunteering allowance.

Will It Work for Your Business Structure?

For unlimited volunteering policies to succeed, employees need to be in roles with flexible working arrangements that allow them to manage their own time. This simply is not true of many businesses where it is necessary for employees to be in the workplace on a regular schedule for operational reasons. If this is you, try exploring a more time structured volunteering scheme instead.

Things to remember if you want to make it work: 

Simply introducing an unlimited volunteering policy does not guarantee a work utopia. Firstly, serious, constructive engagement with potential partners in the non-profit sector is needed to ensure employees can access the kind of opportunities which benefit both them and the business. Secondly, systems need to be put in place to ensure that schedules do not clash and requests for voluntary leave are treated fairly.

You will also need to take steps to ensure that employees feel able to take advantage of an unlimited volunteering policy. For example, one criticism of unlimited holiday policies has been that employees may avoid taking advantage of the policy because of concerns it will reflect badly on them.  In the context of unlimited volunteering, this can be a double-edged sword, with the potential for employees to either feel they are taking too much time off to volunteer, or that they are not doing enough.

The most important thing to remember is that an unlimited volunteering policy is not a gimmick. Unlimited volunteering requires a great deal of work to ensure the scheme is a success. However, done properly, it can be a great way to ensure employee wellbeing, retention and development, improve your public image, and provide greater appeal to jobseekers.

Are you ready to take the leap?

Photo: Flicker Creative Commons

Originally published on Giving Force.