Search

I

By Karen Moseley and Nico Pronk

Improving community health is a big job made up of countless small pieces. Factors as disparate as access to affordable housing, graduation rates, and substance abuse all play a role, and each facet requires its own unique approach.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has called creating a culture of health “one of the most pervasive challenges of our time,” and making meaningful progress against this challenge will require input from government, the non-profit sector, and private employers. The first two entities on that list have long had a presence in community-health efforts, and employers are starting to better understand their part of the equation.

“The connection between business vitality and community health is broad and significant. We’ve seen many examples of how a successful business can fuel a thriving community, and vice versa,” said Cathy Baase, former global director of health services for The Dow Chemical Company. “Employers are well positioned to be leaders on community health, and they increasingly recognize that their responsibility to support good health extends beyond their office walls. For some, that means extending wellness benefits to spouses and family members, but employers are also increasingly supporting employer-community collaborations designed to improve the health of the broader community.”

There are benefits for everyone when the community is healthier. The United States currently spends more on health care than any other country, but 75 percent of that spending goes to treating preventable conditions once they manifest. Just 4 percent goes to preventing those conditions from showing up in the first place. Changing the way we spend could keep people healthier and save everyone money.

There are also business benefits, both direct and indirect, to creating a healthier community. Better health means improved productivity and reduced rates of presenteeism and absenteeism. It also means employees don’t have to stay home as often to care for ailing family members. Employers bear much of the burden of bad health in the form of health plan costs, worker’s compensation payments, and reduced productivity. By one estimate, the cost of providing health care accounts for up to 7.6 percent of a company’s annual operating budget, an average of $8,669 per covered employee. Any improvement to employee health, then, has the potential to pay big dividends.

When employers and community groups collaborate, the benefits multiply for everyone. An investment of $1 in biking and walking trails can return benefits up to $11.80, and $1 invested in food and nutrition education returns $10 in reduced health care costs.

In Albert Lea, MN, the Healthways-led Blue Zones Project used a partnership among city government and private business to encourage residents to make healthier choices. After one year, the average participant had lost two pounds and added 2.9 years to his or her life expectancy. There was a 20 percent reduction in absenteeism for top local employers.

“A community is healthier when its families have access to clean water, healthy food choices, and early childhood education, and when there is adequate investment in social infrastructure. When the community is healthy, employers benefit from access to a happy, healthy workforce that will likely be more productive,” said Baase. “Employers are in a powerful position to make a difference on all of these measures, and there are clear benefits to them if they contribute.”

A new report from the HERO Employer-Community Collaboration Committee offers insight into what employers want most from community health efforts. Through a literature review and interviews with business leaders across the country, HERO identified 20 community health topics that are most significant to employers. Those topics range from the tangible — how well a physical environment supports healthy lifestyles — to more ephemeral matters like emotional health. All of those factors play a role in the health of a community, and they all present employers with an opportunity to make meaningful changes.

There is a network of influences — all tied to the community — that make up the bulk of the impact on community health. And while some of those elements are interconnected — the level of physical activity in a community, for example, has strong ties to the degree to which the physical environment supports getting out and being active — addressing them all is beyond the reach of any single effort. How, then, do business leaders decide where to allocate their resources?

HERO addressed that question by conducting relevance testing with community leaders and employers across the country. The result was a list of six key elements employers consider when deciding whether to get involved in a community health effort:

1. A credible convener: Employers want someone who is a recognized champion for the identified goal, who brings resources to the effort, and who is involved out of genuine concern rather than an interest in the spotlight.


2. Broad representation from the community: Having other employers around the table, along with other community champions, can make a community initiative more appealing.


3. Identify with mission or goals: The goals of a community-health mission should be broad, important to the community, and clearly articulated.


4. Individual commitment to health and wellness: Business leaders are looking for people who are passionate about an effort, and who are involved because the subject is important to them rather than because their boss signed them up for a committee.


5. Organizational commitment to health and wellness: The likelihood an organization will make community health a priority increases when health is a priority within that organization’s own culture.


6. Demonstrated commitment from collaboration leadership: Employers also look for visible, authentic support and involvement by the leaders of a community health effort, when deciding where to invest time and resources.

Working to improve community health is becoming a predominant theme for employers of all sizes, but any effort to address public health will be more effective when everyone works together.

Collaboration in action

A shining example of a community-corporate collaboration has developed over more than a decade in Dubuque, Iowa.

Dubuque has led a 15-year economic development effort that involves stakeholders from around the community, and the city’s work has won national awards. One of the biggest reasons for their success is that everybody is on the same page. They work together to achieve common goals, communicate frequently, and are led by a strong convener.

Because the people involved in Dubuque’s efforts identified with a strong mission and goals, they were able to create constant purpose with the potential to build a sustainable culture of health.

Getting that kind of collaboration requires balancing the priorities of all stakeholders involved, but there’s no question it’s important. One could argue it is impossible to achieve overall health without the leadership, philanthropy, and advocacy the business community can provide. The challenge is not insurmountable. By creating efforts that address the priorities of business leaders, and by leaning on tools provided by efforts like Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Communities to provide a common language for everyone involved, organizers can create efforts that will engage a broad cross-section of the community. Doing so could be a big step toward better health for everyone.

 

Karen Moseley is vice president of education and director of operations for HERO. She has worked in the nonprofit sector for 25 years and has managed the development and dissemination of a number of publications and educational conferences. Nico Pronk, Ph.D., is president at the HealthPartners Institute and chief science officer at HealthPartners. He co-chairs the HERO Employer-Community Collaboration Study Committee, which serves as the governing body for the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Communities initiative.

Photo: Flickr/Creative Commons

 

By Michael McManus, vice president, communications and government relations, Asia Pulp & Paper

Recycling has become a huge global business. According to the Bureau of International Recycling, nearly 600 million tons of recyclables worth an estimated $200 billion are traded globally.

China’s National Sword campaign remains top of mind for industry professionals. The enforcement program implemented in 2017 by the Chinese government stalled imports of 24 kinds of materials, including some types of unsorted paper and plastics. Tons of recycling imports have been turned around at China’s ports upending the entire industry. The campaign is currently transitioning into a strict permitting process leaving many unsure of how, where and what to export.

China has long been the world’s largest importer of recyclables. Over time, many consumers have become confused about what can and cannot be recycled. This includes some types of unsorted paper, plastics and white foam (called expanded polystyrene) used as package cushioning and hot coffee cups. Officials in China claim the new strict standard was the country’s attempt to clean up the incoming recyclable commodity stream, and thus, the country’s own environment.

Those in the industry have expressed confusion and have voiced concerns about negative impacts on business. As an example, because of the policy, the price of clean recycled bulk material has skyrocketed for paper mills that utilize a large quantity of recycled material in the manufacturing of board and paper.

But I like looking at the glass half full.

Manufacturers and brands utilizing these materials can make China’s change in policy work for the United States, which ships much of the estimated 27 million metric tons of recycled paper sent to China every year.

So what can manufacturers and companies do to make an impactful change?

• Be mindful of materials. Manufacturers should transition operations to take advantage of fully recyclable types of paper, packaging and plastics.


• Look to technological advancements. At a global industry conference I recently attended, several exhibitors showed off new machinery with the latest computer and AI technology capable of sensing and sorting material rapidly to create bales of recyclables and non-recyclables. Organizations that take advantage of emerging technology will gain a competitive business edge.


• Educate consumers. According to Asia Pulp & Paper’s 2017 Consumer Trends Survey, only 58 percent of Americans indicated they are confident in their ability to decipher what can and cannot be recycled. Waste and recycling companies must promote and educate consumers on the actual recyclability of everyday products. Packaging designers also have a responsibility to make it clear how products should be disposed of after use.


• Emphasize the importance of individual responsibility. While impactful change takes time, perhaps the most immediate opportunity for positive momentum can be as simple as encouraging consumers to clean out recyclables before throwing them in the green collection bin.


• Prioritize change on the local level. Many regions within in the United States are home to single-stream recycling. Communities could mandate source separation of newspaper, paperboard, corrugated fiberboard, plastic and glass. It might sound difficult and time consuming, but after a few weeks, it becomes second nature – just ask the many citizens who currently do it every day!

When it comes to recycling across the globe, there are gateways, barriers and challenges, but also plenty of solutions, which can hopefully begin to dull the nervousness surrounding the National Sword.

Image credit: Pixabay / Hans

In recent years the pressure has grown on Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube) and other major social media platforms to do a better job of policing their content, and now Unilever -- the global giant with popular consumer brands from Dove and Axe to Knorr and Marmite under its wing -- has upped the ante with the threat of an advertising boycott.

The Internet has been cast ideally as a medium for the free and equal dissemination of ideas. That sounds good in theory, but the missing link is people. Ideas are generated by people, and a fairly large number of people who share commentary and information on social media do so with arguably bad intent -- and often with a clear intent to bully, exploit, foster violence, promote scams and spread lies.

When Boycotts Work: Social Media Edition

Last year Triple Pundit took note of a surge in boycotts, many sparked by the runup to Election Day 2016. One common denominator that emerged was that consumer boycotts rarely, if ever, succeed. Starbucks is just one example of a company that has weathered a long string of consumer boycotts in recent years.

Boycotts that do succeed tend to occur when a good company shows signs of decline. Even if consumer behavior does not change measurably after a boycott is announced, a boycotted company's stock can slide as a result of negative publicity.

Boycotts can also be effective in the business-to-business arena. One recent example of a business-to-business boycott involves the conservative television personality Bill O'Reilly, who lost his longtime platform on Fox after reports of high-end settlements for multiple sexual harassment cases surfaced. His viewers may have stood by him, but advertisers quickly fled the scene.

That brings us to the Unilever announcement. Last week, The Guardian and multiple other outlets reported that the company's chief marketing officer Keith Weed told attendees at a conference lead by the Interactive Advertising Bureau that Unilever "...cannot continue to prop up a digital supply chain – one that delivers over a quarter of our advertising to our consumers – which at times is little better than a swamp in terms of its transparency."

Weed warned that a consumer backlash is building,and he all but predicted that Facebook and other social media would bring about their own demise by failing to police their content:

It is in the digital media industry’s interest to listen and act on this. Before viewers stop viewing, advertisers stop advertising and publishers stop publishing.

Do read the Guardian piece for parallels to other boycotts. As described by reporter Julia Kollewe, the torrent of offensive content on social media has weakened formerly strong brands in digital media, making them vulnerable to boycotts like the one threatened by Unilever.

As described by Kollewe, digital media already took a hit last year when Proctor & Gamble followed through on a similar warning. YouTube suffered an additional blow last year when it was dropped by several major advertisers on the heels of a Sleeping Giants boycott campaign.

When good brands go bad: Facebook's very bad two years

Facebook's troubles seem to run much deeper than other platforms. In recent years Facebook has been losing a crucial generation of young users to up-and-coming platforms like SnapChat, and its reported entanglement with Russian propaganda schemes during the 2016 election cycle adds more fuel to the fire.

Earlier this week, Wired took note of the firm's travails over the past two years, assembling interviews with 51 current and former employees into a "tumultuous" picture:

...most people told the same basic tale: of a company, and a CEO, whose techno-optimism has been crushed as they’ve learned the myriad ways their platform can be used for ill. Of an election that shocked Facebook, even as its fallout put the company under siege. Of a series of external threats, defensive internal calculations, and false starts that delayed Facebook’s reckoning with its impact on global affairs and its users’ minds.

Wired reporters Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein seem to accept that Facebook was unaware of the abuses unspooling beneath its nose during the 2016 election cycle. That's not necessarily an accurate representation, considering Facebook's vigorous defense of board member Peter Thiel after he emerged as a major supporter of the Trump campaign. Thiel's ties to white supremacists also surfaced during the 2016 campaign.

In fact, near the end of the article Thompson and Vogelstein themselves sound a little incredulous. How could the smartest kids in the room be so unaware of the goings-on in their own room:

Numerous security researchers express consternation that it took Facebook so long to realize how the Russian troll farm was exploiting the platform. After all, the group was well known to Facebook. Executives at the company say they’re embarrassed by how long it took them to find the fake accounts, but they point out that they were never given help by US intelligence agencies...

Spotting a weakness, other media organizations are already waiting in line to pick up the slack. Recode reports that the Yahoo/HuffPo mashup Oath could provide companies like Unilever with a curated platform that operates more like a conventional publisher -- in other words, that fact-checks content and screens for offensiveness.

Advertising and supply chain issues

Proctor & Gamble's move against social media looked like a one-off last year, but this time around the issue could have legs. The influential French marketing firm Havas, for example, anticipates that other companies will follow Unilever's lead.

If they do, one factor could be Weed's ability to articulate Unilever's standards in terms that any company with a solid CSR profile can understand (here's that Guardian link again):

Weed compared cleaning up the digital supply chain with efforts made by Unilever to find sustainable sources for its food ingredients and other raw materials and said the Anglo-Dutch business would no longer “invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate.”

BBC News elaborates on Unilever's application of supply chain principles to its advertising platforms:

Unilever has pledged to:

• Not invest in platforms that do not protect children or create division in society




• Only invest in platforms that make a positive contribution to society




• Tackle gender stereotypes in advertising




• Only partner with companies creating a responsible digital infrastructure

Keep a lookout in the coming weeks. If other global companies begin to pile on, 2018 could be another rocky year for Facebook and other digital media.

Image: Esther Vargas/flickr.

In the highlands of Honduras, where tourism and coffee production drive the country’s economic engine, a social revolution is taking place.

The Santa Barbara Mountains, known for their beauty and diverse ecology, are home to some of the most impoverished populations in Central America. Small towns spread across Honduras’ western flank belong to an unpretentious statistic: More than 60 percent of Honduran citizens live below the poverty level. Five out of 10 live without basic amenities that often include adequate living conditions, nutritious food, and the means to improve their standard of living according to the World Bank.

But one partnership of nonprofits and local businesses is working to change those statistics. Their strategy starts not with rebuilding Honduras’ economy, or lobbying for international food aid, but in changing one modest household feature: the kitchen stove.

It’s a transformation that, surprisingly, has taken years to realize. As Dee Lawrence, co-founder of Cool Effect points out, these changes reduce the many risks that come with wood-burning cooking stoves.

"The traditional open-fire cook stoves waste valuable fuelwood, are dirty, can cause burns and are inefficient” explained Dee Lawrence, who also serves as the director of Proyecto Mirador. “Smoke contains 32 known carcinogens in addition to CO2, carbon monoxide and methane and for this reason emitting large amounts of wood burning smoke into the atmosphere is problematic.”

In 2004 Richard and Dee Lawrence helped to found Proyecto Mirador in an effort to change those statistics. They started with a handful of remote, rural homes that faced the classic problems of 21st-century Honduran mountain households: cooking stoves that take massive amounts of wood to maintain, emit noxious fumes and are often a significant fire risk.

Fueling those stoves also creates another set of problems: sourcing wood requires long treks to forests, consuming valuable working and schooling hours. Heating with wood also contributes to deforestation in lush, green mountainous areas, some of which would later become protected parks.

Though these days I write from Idaho or Vancouver, as a child I witnessed this problem in person when my family and I traveled along Honduras’ winding rural roads. The sight of a woman or child balancing heavy loads of chopped firewood on their heads as they walked steadily home or to the market was considered a quaint vision, a part of Honduras’ tourism appeal. For my father however, it wasn’t tourism that drew us to the mountain towns and villages of Central America, but the cyclical impacts of abject poverty and malnutrition. Infant mortality, as researchers in 2001 were able to confirm, was high for families that didn’t have at least two of the nine amenities that North Americans take for granted, such as a toilet, a refrigerator and safe and adequate cooking facilities.

But as the Lawrences and their daughter, Skye, later found, it wasn’t just nutrition that needed to improve in order for families to have a better, healthy lifestyle. The air they breath needed to be cleaner. Children and adults living in homes with smoky, improperly constructed stoves often suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other medical conditions.

“Richard and Skye went to Honduras as translators for a medical brigade that provided aid to rural families after the devastating effects of Hurricane Mitch [in 1998],” said Dee. Hurricane Mitch had deluged the country, leaving more than 7,000 dead and millions homeless in its wake. The medical mission gave the two the opportunity to not only help those affected, but to get a glimpse into rural Honduran homes and to visit with populations that were coping with the effects of COPD and asthma from years of smoke inhalation.

“There [Skye] saw the results of cooking meals on a wood fire and linked it to the respiratory issues [she saw] in the clinic,” Dee said. The observation would lead to a critical question for the Lawrences: “Could a clean burning cook stove help some of these problems go away?

“155,000 cook stoves later, the answer is yes,” said Dee. Honduras’ “last mile,” that remote, undeveloped area today’s common technology struggles to reach, is increasingly seeing better services and improved living conditions.

Proyecto Mirador uses a specially designed stove called Dos Por Tres, a local expression that loosely translates as "in an instant.” The stove is structured to use less wood and offer a safe cooking surface (the plancha).

“At the front of the stove, a small firebox with a grate encourages the passage of air over the fuel, make the fuel burn more completely and efficiently. As the flame heats one part of the plancha, an insulated air space spreads the heat from the flame underneath the entire cooktop reaching more than 370 degrees Fahrenheit. A cavity at the rear of the stove draws the smoke and soot out from under the plancha and up and out of the chimney.” The stove is constructed of brick and mortar and wood ash, with a surface that is safe to touch even when the stove is hot.

“In addition to the physical design of the stove, Proyecto Mirador currently uses Salesforce technology to track and monitor these stoves to ensure they are being reviewed for efficiency as needed.”

But it is Proyecto Mirador’s thoughtful “purchasing” system that fuels the success of the program. “Unlike [in] Africa where a well established banking system allows for microfinance, no such program exists for rural Honduras,” Dee said.

“We know that when you want to sell a stove like ours, you enter a room and look for the richest people in the room to sell to.” But that wasn’t the intention of the program. “We want to serve the poorest of the poor. People who have very few resources at their disposal. We also wanted to do something for the women and children who were giving their good health away during the task of cooking.”

The stove materials and installation are funded through donations and defrayed in part by the family, which is asked to contribute certain materials to its construction. “The materials we require are common in the villages and do not constitute a barrier to participation for even the poorest families (about $12-15 in value),” says Proyecto Mirador, which stresses that they organization doesn’t take cash from the families.

The organization then contracts to have the stove put in by a member of its staff, using materials that have been built by small cottage industries in the local area. The process not only ensures safe installation of a Gold Standard-Certified stove, but contributes business to the local communities where the materials are sourced and made, often by hand.

“For single mothers a cook stove is a godsend,” said Dee; “they are collecting the wood, working small plots of land, feeding a family.”

And it’s also the pathway to better earnings for small businesses.

“There are women who have small businesses such as making tamales or corn husk dolls, for them time saved means time invested in more profitable endeavors,” she added.

Proyecto Mirador’s venture has helped start more than 20 microenterprises and given support to other local businesses that can connect with towns and community members. “They are the face of Mirador with the mayors and officials of the small towns in which we work,” Dee explained.

And indirectly, it also helps safeguard the local environment, which is no longer being as impacted by deforestation and carbon emissions. Proyecto Mirador was the beginning of an even greater effort to save our planet, and is now one of the projects features on Cool Effect so any individual can easily learn more and directly support the project.

 

“We like to think we have looked forward in the world of stoves,” said Dee of the name Proyecto Mirador, which means “the overlook project.” For families once struggling to attain the most basic of amenities, it’s a signal that even the seemingly insurmountable challenges can be met with community support, networking and innovation.

Image courtesy of Proyecto Mirador

By Brian Collett

Mexican taco truck operators in California are using their business power to promote social harmony, foster understanding between cultures and give a voice to the Latino and Muslim minorities.

As part of a campaign called Taco Trucks at Every Mosque, they are holding events at which Muslim services are conducted, educational talks are given, and Mexican food prepared according to halal rules is served free to those who attend.

Although the gatherings were aimed initially at Latino and Muslim communities, people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds are welcomed.

History teacher Ben Vazquez, one of the organizers of the events, which began in Orange County and are run like tours, said: “There are layers of sharing beyond just food.

“It’s our job as activists to nurture understanding and build relationships. And we are developing deeper relationships as we build this.”

Another of the organizers, Todd Gallinger, a Muslim convert, said at one of the meetings: “There’s a lot shared history. The message for tonight is – let’s come together and get to work.

“One of the highlights for me was an Asian Muslim sister from Cambodia who spoke about her personal experience [on] what it was like to be Asian, American and Muslim. Hopefully, it’s the start of a movement for a different change.”

Sonia Ahmed, originally from Guatemala, said the event she attended helped people to become more aware of the Muslim faith and debunked some common myths. She said: “Sometimes ignorance can hurt people. The more you know about something, the better you can communicate.”

Muslim activist Rida Hamida emphasized: “Latinos and Muslims are fighting hate in the most delicious way, one halal taco at a time. Take that, Trump. We are united by taco trucks at every mosque.”

The first meeting attracted more than 400 people. The first seven events were estimated to have served nearly 29,000 tacos to 7,300 people.

The next taco tour is due in May.

The reality for many of the world’s leading brands, from technology firms to apparel companies, is that many businesses no longer make or produce the goods they sell - or in the case of some hotel chains, even own the properties on which their logos are emblazoned.

The outcome of this includes transformative business models and plenty of interesting case studies for business school students - not to mention healthy profit margins. But the results can also cause plenty of risks, and a lack of accountability, within global supply chains. Since Kathy Lee Gifford found herself in the midst of a public relations crisis a generation ago, plenty of wayward suppliers have caused many brands to find themselves in hot water over allegations of environmental degradation and bonded labor.

Many companies have since become more transparent about their supplier base, and have developed codes of conduct to which their vendors must follow, or find themselves without a lucrative customer. Nevertheless, it behooves companies to not only say they are committed to a sustainable supply chain, but are also offering their vendors financial and logistical support as well.

Companies may want to keep on eye on an effort that recently earned a large grant from the Omidyar Group, the self-named "philanthropic investment firm" founded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam in 2004.

Humanity United, an NGO that falls under the Omidyar Group umbrella, announced that it has raised $23 million to be used to invest in startup technology companies fighting human trafficking, forced labor and other human rights violations occurring in supply chains worldwide.

The new fund, named Working Capital, says it also has the support of organizations such as the Walmart Foundation, C&A Foundation, Stardust Equity, and The Walt Disney Company. According to the fund’s executives, this structure of lining up global companies as the actual funders will help Working Capital arrive at social impact solutions that benefit all stakeholders - including workers, consumers, business, and society at large.

Working Capital’s priorities will include product traceability, worker engagement, sourcing platforms, risk assessment, and more ethical recruiting tools. Technologies that could benefit include blockchain, machine learning, artificial intelligence, digital identity and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms.

Despite the emergence of tools such as social media and processes such as ethical audits, many supply chains, and more importantly, humans, are still at risk. This $23 million fund has impressive goals, but is still akin to weilding a butter knife in a gunfight. It behooves companies with a global reach to view Working Capital as an inspiration; by launching similar efforts, companies can then share with their stakeholders a compelling story of how they are truly doing what they can to solve one of the most pressing human rights and business problems this century - abuses within supply chains.

Image credit: ILO/Flickr

By Rory Jacobson 

Friday’s short government shutdown culminated in a potentially huge win for the climate, business and investors. Among a slew of spending and tax credits tucked into the budget bill signed by U.S. President Trump, one of them, known as 45Q, expands tax incentives for carbon capture, including from the air.  With advocates from both sides of the aisle, the act shows bipartisan support for carbon capture technology. The policy also signals a shift toward greater development and deployment for something known as carbon dioxide removal.

Broadly speaking, carbon dioxide removal involves two crucial steps: trapping carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas causing climate change) and reliably storing it. For every qualifying project, 45Q generates a tax credit: $50 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) buried in underground storage, $35 per ton for either utilization or enhanced oil recovery.

With no cap on the available tax credits and 12 years to claim them, 45Q is poised to do for carbon capture what similar incentives did for wind and solar power: unleash private sector investments that catapult the technology into its maturity. Tax credits are the first step in that direction. The policy makes a stronger business case for development, which in turn will drive necessary innovations that make it easier and more attractive to take these technologies to scale.

This scaling is vital. Scientists agree that cleaning up past emissions of carbon dioxide is essential to meeting safe climate targets. And 45Q is the first federal acknowledgement of the role that carbon utilization and air capture technologies will play in getting us there.

Money for mechanical trees Direct air capture (DAC) is a method for literally removing carbon from the atmosphere. Mechanical trees suck in ambient air and chemically separate out the carbon dioxide. From there, the captured CO2 is pumped deep underground into sealed chambers. The end result of direct air capture, in other words, is permanently stored CO2.

The best part? This technology is far from theoretical. ClimeWorks is one of three startups--along with Global Thermostat and Carbon Engineering--to pull it off: Their negative emissions plant in Iceland “stores the air-captured CO2 safely and permanently in basalt, leading us closer to our efforts to achieve global warming targets.”

 

Thus far, however, all of ClimeWorks plants have been located outside the U.S and have been highly subsidized. Direct air capture has a near limitless potential for carbon removal, making it a critical tool for carbon dioxide removal. But the high cost of the technology in pilot projects has been a barrier to wide adoption. 45Q takes an important step toward lowering these costs. As the first instance of explicit federal support, the bill sends a clear signal to DAC investors to continue funding innovations that further bring down costs.

Waste to value 45Q designates a $35 per ton tax credit for the beneficial recycling or utilization of captured CO2 emissions. Rather than storing emissions underground, CarbonTech businesses recycle waste carbon dioxide by converting it into consumer products and materials like plastics, transportation fuels, and chemicals. That credit is likely to drive a handful of industrial carbon capture projects, according to a recent study.

CarbonCure makes a stronger, faster-curing cement by injecting waste carbon dioxide into cement mixers. CarbonCure’s technology repurposes greenhouse gas emissions, injecting them into concrete to yield a superior and greener product. Positively, the extension of 45Q will incentivize more companies to reuse CO2 in novel and creative ways by making the processes and technologies more investable and affordable. In turn, this can help build early markets and broader political will for carbon removal.

Public money unlocks private dollars Even before the extension of 45Q, innovative investors, corporations, and startups were already working to build an industry around recycling carbon emissions. More than $2 billion dollars in private capital gathered at Center for Carbon Removal’s CarbonTech Investor Roundtable last week to explore investment opportunities. They asked for more CarbonTech businesses. They also said policy support is critical to creating large markets for CarbonTech, in turn increasing revenue and mitigating climate change.

It's like the bipartisan authors of 45Q were in the room. With federal support for carbon recycling, building a business or investing in the carbon recycling space is less risky and potentially more profitable than ever before.

Strange bedfellows 45Q gathered diverse backers, ranging from fossil fuel companies to unions and environmentalists. While these stakeholders touted different benefits for the economy and the environment, they generally agreed on the importance of federal incentives for carbon capture and utilization. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to geologic carbon dioxide sequestration, will likely receive many of the 45Q tax credits.

But even EOR projects would help carbon capture companies reduce their costs and get to scale.

With these learnings from EOR projects under their belt, carbon capture companies could more easily transition to storing CO2 underground without EOR when carbon prices increase to make such standalone sequestration economically viable

Cementing the victory Here at Center for Carbon Removal, we work to grow nascent carbon removal activities into large-scale climate solutions. Technological, commercial, and policy barriers must be overcome in order to do so. 45Q starts to tackle all three of these obstacles by reducing the risks and increasing the profitability of carbon removal.  This is why CCR, as part of a diverse coalition, has advocated for this policy for years.  

This victory calls for even more tenacious work on carbon removal. Center for Carbon Removal invite you to join us in pioneering the future of carbon removal.  We need your intellect, passion and expertise.  Here is how you can get involved:

• Subscribe This Week in Carbon Removal to keep abreast of the latest carbon removal news, events, job postings, and journal articles.


• Join Center for Carbon Removal Investor Network for exclusive connections to other investors and the hottest startups.  


• Got a good CarbonTech business idea? Sign up to compete in Carbon Removal Labs business accelerator.  

Rory Jacobson is a Policy Analyst at the Center for Carbon Removal where he researches policies with the potential to support carbon removal solutions.

Image credit: ClimeWorks, used with permission

The Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University took a close look at the growing practice of CSR contracting last week, and it seems that they like what they see. Corporate social responsibility contracting refers to the practice of linking executive compensation to achieving CSR goals. The question then becomes whether the goals are designed to mark substantial progress, or are they simply public relations "fluff." In other words, are executives being rewarded for genuine achievements or are they simply collecting a bonus for successful greenwashing campaigns.

Corporate social responsibility: from skeptical to not-so-skeptical

Kellogg describes the research of professors Dylan Minor, Bryan Hong and Caroline Flammer in its Kellogg Insight publication under the self-explanatory headline, "Rewarding CEOs for Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off for Society—and for Firms: CSR contracting encourages executives to sacrifice short-term payoffs for long-term gains."

That pretty much sums it up, but do read the article for full details and some interesting background. Minor, who is a professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at Kellogg, was initially skeptical that the data would reveal any substantial bottom line benefit from CSR contracting:

To him, many CSR efforts looked like little more than PR fluff. Minor suspected that when push came to shove, executives would prioritize the company’s bottom line over what was socially responsible. And because CSR is notoriously difficult to quantify, CEOs could likely use dubious metrics to pad their salaries with little accountability in terms of what they were actually accomplishing.

The new corporate social responsibility research changed his mind. Minor, Hong (University of Western Ontario) and Flammer (Boston University) looked at the  data for companies that base executive pay partly on CSR performance:

To Minor’s surprise, the research revealed that CSR contracting actually hit its mark, leading companies to reduce emissions, increase eco-friendly or “green” patents, and improve social responsibility ratings across the board. Those actions, in turn, increased companies’ value over the long run.

Within the sample group, the study analyzed toxic emissions, number of green patent filings, and third-party overall corporate social responsibility ratings.

All three markers showed significant improvement over the 10-year span of the study, with emissions falling by almost 9 percent, patents increasing 3 percent, and corporate social responsibility ratings coming up 5 percent.

More good bottom line news for CSR

Minor cautions that corporate social responsibility contracting is a new field of study, so it will take time to shake out more hard evidence about the connection between CSR and stock performance.

Nevertheless, as a jumping-off point the study has broken new ground. With an "army of research assistants" at hand, the authors assembled the first database of its kind to include corporate social responsibility contracting for every company in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index between 2004 and 20013.

One surprise was the rapid growth in CSR contracting, from 12 percent in 2004 to 40 percent in 2013.

Another interesting takeaway is the involvement of high-carbon industries. The study found that mining, energy and transportation companies engaged in CSR contracting at double the average rate.

It seems that the research team was most surprised by the effect of CSR contracting on company value:

Just as incredibly, these changes did not come at the expense of that bottom line. Minor’s team found that CSR contracting led a firm’s value to increase by three percent over the next year.

Although it seems like simple common sense, the new study provides much-needed statistical support for the impact of CSR contracting on corporate culture.

Corporations have long been criticized for focusing on quarterly profits at the expense of long term growth and sustainability. CSR contracts can upend that equation:

According to the researchers, this growth happens because CSR contracting forces executives to sacrifice short-term payoffs for long-term gains.

CSR: moral capital is just not good enough any more.

Minor has already begun work on a followup study indicating that an undisciplined approach to goal-setting doesn't make the cut. He explains:

"Half the folks out there are doing what we would call ‘greenwashing,’ where they just put these things up, and they're not very substantive. Our positive findings are based on those companies that are really being truthful and transparent about what they’re doing.”

The followup study also builds on an earlier CSR study by Minor published in 2015, in which he confirmed and formalized a phenomenon that other CSR researchers have been tracking.

In the 2015 paper, Minor set out to understand why companies and investors were tuning into CSR, even without hard evidence of the bottom line evidence.

His research indicated that in the absence of a direct bottom line impact, companies do perceive value in using CSR to build moral capital. In that approach, CSR is a hedge against the consequences of an adverse event (Volkswagen's diesel emissions scandal is one example of an "adverse event).

The problem that Minor nailed down is that this kind of "CSR contribution" actually doesn't work, and may even expose a company to greater risks while worsening its overall CSR performance. That's because managers perceive moral capital as a cushion that blunts the consequences of bad decisions, which makes them more likely to take risks, which increases the chance of an adverse event.

In contrast, Minor and his research team found that managers who foresee potential trouble spots and strategically target CSR investments to address them are more likely to protect their firms from the effects of adverse events:

In particular, those firms that engage in CSR activities related to an adverse event are given more of the benefit of the doubt concerning their negligence related to the event. For example, if a firm engages in substantive (positive) environmental CSR, should it become involved in an environmental disaster...it is less likely the firm is guilty of negligence, reducing its expected event cost.

Last fall Caroline Flammer published a study that also sounds a cautionary note. She looked at the results of shareholder CSR and environmental votes from 1997 to 2012, and found that certain "close call" votes yielded a small but measurable positive effect on stock prices.

Interestingly, Flammer found that employee relations can be a key element:

Dr. Flammer found that increased shareholder value happens because of improved operating performance. The increase in operating performance can be attributed to improvements in labour productivity and sales growth, suggesting CSR improves employee satisfaction and appeals to customers.

However, she also found that results vary widely from one industry to another:

Stakeholders of companies operating in socially-conscious industries tend to have stronger interests in CSR. They therefore respond more favourably to new CSR activities, leading to higher returns.

And, she found that the law of diminishing returns can apply:

Initial financial benefits of CSR activities may be significant, but returns will eventually decrease. This is consistent with the findings of Wang and colleagues (2008) who found that firm-level CSR engagement plotted against financial performance initially rises but eventually tapers off, creating an inverse U-shaped curve.

That point about diminishing returns may seem somewhat discouraging, but as the body of CSR research grows, so does the knowledge base of best practices and effective strategies, leading to the prospect of more favorable outcomes even after the initial impact.

CSR focusing on environmental and energy issues may also help smooth out the "U-shaped" curves and lead to more strategic, effective CSR programs that yield strong results over the long run.

Photo (cropped): Andrei Niemimäki/flickr.

By Scott Cramer

As the CEO of a small solar company relying on foreign imports, what I know to be true of our country and the industry in which I work casts a shadow on any frustration I’m supposed to have over the 201 Trade Case decision.

The solar industry is like America itself: full of good intentions, strong, enduring, resilient, and willing to fight to improve not just the human condition, but also the most sacred place in our nation’s psyche – the sole item preceding the white picket fence in the last and greatest components of the American Dream – our homes – which are now powered by solar in larger numbers than ever.

That trend will still continue year over year. I’m unfazed by the new tariff, and I feel many American solar companies relying on foreign imports have reason to feel the same.

It’s why logic tells me to ignore the cloudy, alarmist and overwhelmingly negative reactions to the ruling of the tariff. Because no matter what solar legislation is written into law, it can’t achieve its intentions if they differ from the will of the overwhelming majority, who will find a way to prevail despite the International Trade Commission’s intervention.

Written into law by three entities, all of them at some point having filed for bankruptcy, (President Trump, Suniva, and SolarWorld), the 1974 Trade Act cannot harm the long-term future of 275,000 people employed in the thriving American solar industry because the overwhelming majority will find creative workarounds that spawn the innovation and resourcefulness our industry needs to secure its foothold in the future of renewable energy.

In hopes of helping other solar executives understand the opportunity to grow and prosper in spite of the tariff, I’ve outlined the below principles we must follow and remember if we are to move forward in the way I know we can.

Unpacking the 201 Trade Case

The first 2.5 gigawatts of foreign-imported solar cells will be excluded from the tariff, giving unprepared companies relying on foreign imported solar cells more breathing room than expected. To give you an idea of how much 2.5 gigawatts actually is, that’s roughly 5 percent of all solar modules installed in America in the third quarter of 2017; a significant figure to say the least.

Although America imports roughly 80 percent of its solar cells, making the 201 Trade Case Tariff decision loom large, there are upsides to the decision when we unpack the legislation piece by piece.

The 30% tariff issued is far less than the 50% tariff advocated by Suniva and SolarWorld, the two companies who petitioned the International Trade Commission to create tariffs. Although 30% seems like a lot, the bulk of American solar companies’ costs aren’t in panel imports. The bulk of most solar companies’ costs don’t stem from the cost of the solar panels themselves, which is what the tariff will impact, and only for several years at declining intervals of tariff percentages.

Rather, the majority of costs go toward customer acquisition. After assessment software, staffing, lead generation, sales processes, and operational costs are factored into the average solar company’s expenditures, the cost of American solar business will only go up by 10% in result of the tariffs, and only for the first year the tariff is imposed.

The tariff will be reduced each year over the span of four years, and in five percent increments. This means that by 2022, the tariff will only be 15 percent, bringing the actual cost of operating an American solar business to a net price increase of roughly 4% in the fourth and final year of the tariff, making the hit entirely surmountable.

Then the tariff goes away completely.

The Tariff Will Reveal Which Solar Companies Can be Trusted to Invest in the Customer Experience

The payoff on rooftop solar takes years for customers to receive and sometimes decades to magnify, so it’s imperative consumers invest their hard-earned money in solar companies that are profitable enough to maintain a positive customer experience.

Given that the tariff will only cause job losses and cut corners in the customer experience for solar companies that have over-leveraged themselves with debt, consumers will be less overwhelmed by the options made available to them, and are therefore more likely to have an easier time picking from a smaller bucket of players, all of whom being companies capable of doing right by the customer.

This positive impact will only be magnified by reducing the amount of negative lead generation practices many solar companies engage in, from harassing homeowners who never expressed interest in solar to selling solar leads they know have no value.

The Logistics of the Tariff Are Mathematically Manageable

Given the 2.5-gigawatt installation threshold before the tariff took effect, financially stable solar companies had plenty of time to import a large number of panels to offset the effect of the impending tariff, and this was the case prior to Trump’s January announcement of the actual tariff logistics.

It becomes easy to point a finger at the government when a trade case doesn’t ‘weigh in our favor,’ but we must remember that the government has also done a lot to help residential solar, from federal to state tax incentives.

I believe in a free marketplace. However, America isn’t and never has been the purely capitalistic economy most citizens perceive it to be. Even Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ is a byproduct of State Capitalism (our current economic model), which has given us a Central Bank to control interest rates, a White House for passing legislation, and tax codes for Federal resource allocation.

Although tariffs tend to have unintended consequences, if the 201 Trade Case tariffs achieve their intended results, Suniva, SolarWorld and other companies who felt hamstrung by the low cost of foreign-imported residential solar cells over the past decade will be back in the ring as competitors, creating more competition and, therefore, innovation. While that may not mean immediate return for American solar companies who’ve relied on foreign imports, it means a better outcome for solar prospects, which should be the objective of every American solar business.

Additionally, the 201 Trade Case tariff will bring solar companies closer to forecasting how price changes affect the real consumer demand for solar panels, a step the American solar industry must be able to make within the next 5 years if it’s to bring solutions to consumers at the appropriate price without federal and statewide incentives.

Although these incentives aren’t in immediate threat of disappearing, it won’t hurt our industry to learn how we can function without them, and subjecting our rooftop solar industry to a natural and domestic pricing environment will make this possible.

This becomes increasingly true if the future bodes toward fewer solar tax credits and rebates. However, even if fewer tax credits and rebates for residential solar become a reality, solar company technology and innovation may be able to outpace the resulting hike in solar cell prices.

A Proportional Scale Back on Chinese Imported Solar Cells Means Greater Quality for Solar Prospects

Over the past decade, many American solar companies, at the expense of their customers, have relied heavily on the cheapest solar panel prices from China to sustain their deeply-leveraged, debt-laden business models.

Trump’s blue-collar presidential campaign heavily targeted fair trade deals and bringing the American manufacturing business back to life through economically protectionist measures, and the recent trade case decision is consistent with those campaign tactics.

Some would even go so far as saying the 201 Trade Case decision is the result of Trump’s tenuous personal relationship with China, who, as the most prolific solar panel manufacturer in the world, is less than thrilled with the tariff. Despite China taking a harder hit than any other country because of the tariff, JinkoSolar, a Chinese solar panel manufacturing company, has announced plans to build a solar factory in Florida.

An overwhelming majority (three-fifths) of America’s foreign-imported solar cells used to come from China, namely because of the country’s subsidization of the product and consumers’ lack of education on differing levels of solar panel quality, which skewed demand for Chinese imported solar panels in China’s favor.

Although roughly 10% of all American-imported solar cells came from China prior to the tariff, that’s still a hefty percentage of American solar relying on a Chinese product that, although low-priced and offering its own unique benefits, does not expose consumers to the full spread of solar panel features the American market has missed out on over the past decade.

Yes, a tariff on solar panels from China will increase prices, but it will also direct American solar companies and their prospects toward higher quality solar panels and, therefore, a better customer experience coupled with larger investments in driving down costs for high quality solar panels.

Homeowners Will Still be Able to Go Solar for Zero Down

No cost solar in America is a major misconception, because the phrase is really meant to express that prospects can go solar for zero down, which, although, convenient, isn’t going solar for free. There may be a day when that happens, but it is far off in the future – tariffs or not. And, although solar isn’t free, neither is any good investment. Dispersing the cost of a solar panel system over a longer loan length may increase the price of going solar, but it will reduce the intensity of the cost increases.

Essentially, the tariff won’t get in the way of creative financing options for solar prospects and solar companies alike.

However, don’t let the cost of residential solar compel you to 1) embark on a DIY solar project (which is a big no-no for every one). or 2) keep you from benefiting from the ROI of residential solar. Solar should never be viewed as an up-front expense, but rather as an investment, which is secured by the installation and production warranties Utah solar companies provide for their customers.

Simply put, when major trade decisions that impact an entire industry are set forth by a select few and intended to benefit only a select few, the market will correct these small players’ mistakes, even if many fear the mistakes to be incorrigible.

Once the tariff has ended, we will be able to laugh at the fear it once caused our industry in our turn.

Photo: Go Solar Group

Scott Cramer is CEO, Go Solar Group

It’s Valentine’s Day, which means many of us are going to reach for that box of chocolate for a gift (or for ourselves) - last year, estimates suggested almost $2 billion was spent on chocolate and candy in the U.S. alone. Spending on chocolate has become easier for consumers, as market forces have resulted in the price of chocolate decreasing in recent years.

But there are several long-term threats to the global chocolate industry, not the least of which is climate change. Concerns over human rights have also convinced more consumers to be discerning about the choices they make when purchasing chocolate. Companies have responded in kind, as many have started to partner with nonprofits on projects ranging from mapping tools to supply chain transparency.

One company pledging to improve its chocolate supply chain performance is Italy-based Ferrero. The owner of many brands, including Kinder, Nutella, the famous gold foil-wrapped Ferrero Rocher - and soon, several Nestle products made here in the U.S. - recently issued its latest sustainability report.

Ferrero says it is striving to address where the concerns of its stakeholders, and the company’s potential business impacts, converge. Four of these most pressing issues are product safety, human rights, responsible sourcing and nutrition.

To that end, Ferrero has outlined several sustainability goals the company seeks to complete by the end of this decade - some of them have already been met. On the environmental front, the company pledged last year to end all and any deforestation within its supply chain.

Several objectives, such as sourcing only cage-free eggs and using only sustainable palm oil, were completed earlier this decade. Other goals, such as using only certified sustainable cocoa, responsibly sourced sugar and improving the traceability of one of its most important ingredients, hazelnuts, are on target to be reached by 2020.

Curiously, food waste did not rate as a high concern either by the company or its stakeholders; but in the past, the company has experimented with making packaging out of hazelnut shells, and Ferrero says it is tackling other waste concerns by using more renewable sources for its wrappers and boxes.

Finally, a company known for indulgence says it is striving to ensure its products are consumed responsibly. In Europe, Ferrero says it does not market to kids under 12 years old; and through its Kinder brands, it is has reached 4.4 million kids in extolling the virtues of sport.

Want to tell the world about your new CR report? ReportAlert has developed the largest network of corporate responsibility stakeholders available globally – let them help you to spread the word.

Image credit: Noha Nve/Flickr