Search

The Trump White House may have reaffirmed its commitment to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but for the private sector and state and local governments, it is business as usual.

At least, that is according to a report jointly issued by The Climate Group and the New Climate Institute. The survey, launched to coincide with Climate Week NYC currently underway during the United Nations’ General Assembly, offers an encouraging assessment of climate action across the U.S., with or without the federal government.

The study’s authors evaluated data, much of which was provided by CDP, and determined that the U.S. can meet about half of its climate pledge by 2025 based on the commitments already made by leading companies as well as U.S. states and businesses. The combined emissions reduction targets set by California, Colorado and New York alone comprise a large portion of the collective goals set by U.S. states.

But the report also concludes the 54 cities that have committed to emissions reduction goals have, in general, been far more ambitious in implementing these plans. Cities as different as New York City and Salt Lake City have forged ahead and have outlined their plants to reduce their emissions no matter who is seated in the White House or Congress.

Furthermore, companies are also helping to drive reduced emissions targets as well as clean energy deployment nationwide. The report’s authors found that many of America’s largest corporations are amongst the most aggressive players in the drive to mitigate climate change, due mostly to their ambitious renewable energy investment programs.

In fact, when utilities’ climate change plans are factored in, analysts from The Climate Group and the New Climate Institute concluded that together, these various local governments and companies may actually be underestimating their impact rather than overestimating their contributions. As Helen Clarkson, CEO of The Climate Group said in a public statement:

“This report reaffirms our belief that states, cities and business will not waiver in their climate commitment, regardless of the U.S. Administration’s decision to withdraw from Paris. It shows us that climate action is not solely dependent on the actions of national government. U.S. states, cities and businesses have the power to mitigate the consequences of the Paris pull out.”

Actions taken by some of America’s most noted companies help buttress this report’s conclusion. Mars Inc., for example, recently said it plans on investing about $1 billion in climate change and sustainable supply chain programs over the next decade, on top of the renewables investments it has already made over the past several years. Technology giants such as Salesforce and Apple are also making long-term decisions to power more of their operations with clean energy technologies. And more energy companies, such as WGL Holdings (which owns the utility Washington Gas) are incorporating more sources of power, such as solar, into their portfolios.

Furthermore, those 342 commitments evaluated in this report shows that the local and state governments, as well as the companies surveyed, on represent 44 percent of U.S. emissions – suggesting that other climate change mitigation efforts evolving across the country are occurring under the radar.

Image credit: Garrett/Flickr

 

Join Pearson, SAP, ASU WSSI, UN PRME, and TriplePundit at #WhyPurpose on September 26th at 8am PT / 11am ET / 4pm BT to discuss why young people want to work for businesses with a social purpose, how they’re preparing to join the workforce, and what this means for businesses. For more information or to RSVP click here.

Reduce inequality and close the gap between rich and poor. Provide quality education for every child and decent jobs for all. These are just some of the ambitions set out in the Sustainable Development Goals (or SDGs), unanimously adopted at the United Nations General Assembly Summit in September 2015. Each goal is further broken out into specific targets, 169 between them, to reach by 2030.  

The SDGs are the successor to the Millennium Development Goals, eight international development goals launched in 2000, which primarily addressed the needs of developing countries and were implemented through governmental programs and funding.

And while the 2015 UN report on the progress of the MDGs described them as the “most successful anti-poverty movement in history,” it also acknowledged “inequalities persist and that progress has been uneven.”

The hope is the SDGs will close these gaps by engaging the private sector, according to Richard Gilbert, a Director at Business Fights Poverty, a UK-based network that brings together the business and development communities, and co-author of the report Embedding the Sustainable Development Goals into Business.

He explained, “The SDGs are a global platform developed through a process whereby governments, civil society, and business organizations all took part.  So, this is the first time we’ve had a sustainable development framework supported by all sectors of society and why companies are so keen to support the SDGs.”

Companies that align with the SDGs can also reinvigorate their own sustainability efforts while demonstrating how they’re contributing to global and national development priorities, according to Gilbert. Even so, the challenge remains: How do you move beyond the rhetoric, roll your sleeves up and engage with the goals?

Many companies are turning to the SDG Compass, created in 2015 as a joint effort of the UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the Global Reporting Initiative.

The Compass guides companies through a process to determine which SDGs are most material to their operations and how to align their strategies with these goals. While recognizing that all 17 SDGs are important, most companies will focus on those that align closely with their core business and where they feel they can have the biggest impact.

To integrate each goal within the company’s own sustainability strategies, a common approach is to focus on the specific targets associated with each SDG and adapt these to the company’s own sustainability targets. This approach allows the company to take an abstract global target and make it concrete and actionable for their business, while maintaining “the spirit and the ambition of the SDG,” said Gilbert.

This was the case for Pearson, the world’s learning company. Reviewing its 2020 Sustainability Plan against the 17 SDGs, the company determined three of the goals – SDG4 Quality Education, SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth, and SDG10 Reducing Inequalities – lined up closely with their mission and where they could have the biggest impact.

Believing that education is the “driver of economic and social progress, underpinning the achievement of all 17 goals,” as stated in its 2016 Sustainability Report, Pearson is currently addressing several of the targets associated with SDG4.

For example, to address SDG4 Target 1, “to ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education,” Pearson partnered with the Campaign for Female Education (Camfed) beginning in 2013, on a project supported by the UK Department of International Development (DFID) and the relevant national Ministries of Education. Camfed helps girls from low-income communities in Zimbabwe and Tanzania stay in school, learn and develop key skills for life and work. Extreme poverty in these regions means children underperform in school or just don’t attend, and girls are more likely never to set foot in a classroom than boys.

Leveraging its core strengths, Pearson worked with Camfed to develop learning materials and train “Learner Guides,” girls who work as mentors with vulnerable children in rural schools. Some 3,700 young women have been trained as guides, who reached over 120,000 secondary school children with weekly mentoring sessions in 2016 to help improve attendance and learning outcomes.

Another company linking its sustainability efforts with SDG4 Target 1 is Ericsson, the telecom-network equipment maker. Working with local mobile telecom providers, Ericsson is bringing mobile broadband infrastructure to underserved areas throughout Asia, Africa and South America through its Connect to Learn initiative.

The program provides schools in these areas with internet connectivity over mobile broadband. Several studies, like this recent one from UNESCO, have shown that bringing information technology to schools can greatly improve the quality of education for both students and teachers. The program also provides scholarships, especially for girls, to boost access to secondary schooling.

Connect to Learn was launched in 2010. Today the program operates in 23 countries, works with 16 different mobile operators, and benefits some 80,000 students, according to the company’s most recent Sustainability Report.

Novozymes, the global biotechnology company, is addressing SDG4 Target 7 to “ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development,” through a few different programs.  

Its Citizyme program provided educational resources to schools that teach how biotechnology can promote sustainable development and environmental responsibility. The project had reached almost 200,000 students, mostly in North America and Europe, by 2015 when it was transitioned to EDUCATE, an ambitious initiative with the goal to reach 1 million people by 2020.

In India, Novozymes organized the public speaking competition Voice for Biotech. University students present on the role of biotechnology in areas like healthcare, biofuels, and food security. Winners are awarded internships at the company’s research facility in Bangalore as well as cash prizes. The first of these competitions was held in 2013 attracting 2500 participants from 68 universities across India.

These are just a few examples of how companies are leveraging their core strengths to connect business targets with the SDGs. Numerous resources are available to learn more from organizations including Business Fights Poverty, Business & Sustainable Development Commission, Business for 2030, and the UN Global Compact.

The topic will also be the featured at this week's UN conference in New York, the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit. Follow the proceedings on social media #GCLeadersSummit.

Image credit: US DOE, Flickr

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has yet to release firm data on the amount of petroleum products and other toxic substances Hurricane Harvey unleashed on the Texas environment. According to a database kept by the U.S. Coast Guard, though, the numbers are already adding up to one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. in recent years.

The U.S. Coast Guard Has The Numbers On Harvey Spills

The organization Environmental Integrity Project has compiled the Coast Guard data into an interactive map of toxic spills, including about 100,000 gallons of glycerine and 80,000 gallons of methyl alcohol.

The largest single spill consisted of unleaded gasoline that flooded into the Houston Ship Channel from the Magellan Pipeline Company.

The EIP map adds some firm detail to another data-driven map created by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which lists 650 facilities potentially impacted by Hurricane Harvey. That list includes hundreds of wastewater treatment plants, an unknown number of which have released untreated sewage and industrial waste after Harvey.

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard data only present part of the picture. Its database includes reports of "significant" land and water spills that the Coast Guard received from August 24 to September 8.

These land and water reports are required by federal law (other reports are compiled by EPA), but Texas Governor Greg Abbott added a heavy dose of unnecessary confusion to the picture on August 23, days before Harvey struck, when he issued a proclamation authorizing a temporary waiver of reporting requirements.

In the same proclamation Abbott admitted that he actually had no authority to waive federal regulations, but the damage was already done. An unknown number of facility owners and managers may have taken him at his word.

In addition, according to EIP the Governor also waived certain state regulations without the legal authority to do so:

Some of the state laws the governor waived are also federal requirements. For example, all of the Texas state air pollution reporting requirements contained in Governor Abbott’s proclamation are also contained in federal law. Industrial sources, therefore, have been and remain under a legal obligation to report all releases of contaminants.

Reuters also took a look at the Coast Guard database and came up with a total of more than 22,000 barrels of crude oil, petroleum products and other chemicals released into the environment, including 365 tons of sulfur dioxide, ammonia, toluene, benzene, and other harmful substances.

Other additional impacts noted by Reuters include 27 million cubic feet of natural gas, 1,000 tons of asphalt, and "unknown quantities of other substances."

EIP points out that the failure to report is not just a numbers game:

Reporting all pollution before, during, and after a crisis is critical to protect the public and the emergency responders who rely on the information to protect themselves from harmful exposure. In addition, pollution reports help local, state, and federal officials identify and prioritize neighborhoods, waterways, and businesses that need to be monitored or cleaned up.

So far the known quantities are far below the 190,000 barrels of oil spills racked up by Katrina along the Louisiana coast, but EPA has yet to disclose its data.

Until state and federal agencies get a firm handle on the impact, Texas's ability to recover from Harvey and plan effectively for the next weather emergency will be crippled.

Creating a culture of preparedness

The Washington Post has a good long form article on the many complexities involved in hardening coastal communities like Houston against storms. Do read the full article for details. For those of you on the go, the gist of it is that it is that the general public needs to come around to realizing the high risks involved in coastal living and prepare accordingly.

The Post cites FEMA administrator William "Brock" Long, who emphasizes the need to embed long term planning in the national consciousness:

“We need a true culture of preparedness,” he said.

Quite a bit of media attention has been focused on the lack of preparedness at commercial, industrial and Superfund sites in Harvey's path, but the cumulative release of toxic substances from ordinary households could also add up.

The list includes any number of of household cleaning supplies, toiletries, craft and hobby supplies, supplies related to home-based businesses, paints and other home repair materials, yard care supplies, and pool chemicals.

The good news is that benign alternatives to hazardous household products are coming into the mass market. Although transitioning them to universal use is a long, complicated and highly granular endeavor, it is not an impossible one.

Transitioning to flood-resistant building codes is another solution within the realm of possibility.

Florida revised its building codes after Hurricane Andrew devastated the state in 1992, and the stricter standards seem to have helped some buidings survive Hurricane Irma's impact.

A broader solution is also gaining more traction among planners in the aftermath of Harvey: invest more taxpayer dollars in drainage systems, pumps and other flood mitigation infrastructure, and buying out homes or relocating entire neighborhoods that experience chronic flooding.

Planners can plan, but mustering the political to accomplish major infrastructure projects is another matter.

That task is especially difficult in cities where local zoning laws are lax or non-existent, as the Post explains:

Earlier warnings against Houston’s unchecked building explosion have come back to haunt it yet again, environmentalists and civil engineers said this month, attributing part of the flooding to the city’s lack of adequate drainage and excessive building in areas of known risk.

Perhaps lessons learned in Florida will help Houston officials make a better case for risk mitigation.

Still, developing public support for new taxpayer investments -- and a new ecosystem of rules and regulations -- is a tough row to hoe in a culture that has long been groomed to reject taxes, rules and regulations.

Image (screenshot): via EIP, interactive map of spills based on Coast Guard reports.

By Bernadette Grey

Fall is back-to-school season not just for students, but for all of America. Between students, parents and employees, more than half the nation has regular contact with a school. No other institution comes close.

If brands built relationships with all of America’s 7 million educators, they’d also reach the nation’s 54.5 million students and 90 million parents. That’s why companies are increasingly partnering with teachers to raise awareness of their corporate causes. With 70 percent of Americans saying that grade school teachers have “high” or “very high” ethical standards, brands know that teachers make ideal philanthropic partners.

Take H&R Block. Through its H&R Block Budget Challenge, a free online money management game, the consumer tax services provider helps high school students learn financial literacy. In a fun, low-pressure way, it teaches them the basics of paying bills and taxes, managing expenses, saving money, and planning for retirement. Of the teachers who have incorporated the challenge into their curriculum, more than 96 percent appreciate the “learn by doing” approach.

Companies that partner with teachers do more than build relationships with valuable consumers. They give students a lesson in humanity, take weight off teachers’ shoulders, and expand awareness of their chosen cause.

Where teachers want help

Ready to team up with teachers? Educators need help in three primary ways:

1. Creating immersive in-class experiences

Everyone loves a field trip. But with school budgets stretched thin, companies are getting creative to bring out-of-class experiences into the classroom.

The Ford Motor Company Fund, for example, recently partnered with teachers to host its Driving Skills for Life virtual assembly. Although Ford has been teaching teenage driver safety courses around the country for 13 years, it wanted to reach more students. The virtual event brought driver’s education to more than 2,500 students, and thousands more will watch the taped event.

Whatever the cause, use technology to take it straight to students. From experiencing World War I in the trenches to reliving the Apollo moon landing, tools like classroom video, live chats, and virtual reality can make lessons come alive for students.

2. Developing good citizens

One thing today’s corporations and nonprofits have in common with teachers is a desire to leave the world a better place. By opening students’ eyes to community needs, brands boost the impact of their philanthropic initiatives while building trust with teachers.

The Nature Conservancy is a leader in global conservation working to protect the lands and waters that significantly impact the planet’s health. By offering virtual field trips, lesson plans and resources for teachers on its Nature Works Everywhere site, backed by Lowe’s, The Nature Conservancy is molding tomorrow’s conservationists and growing the workforce’s STEM pipeline while making teachers’ lives easier.

The opportunities are as varied as the brands themselves. Institutional food service provider Sodexo was one of the first companies to support Share Our Strength’s Generation No Kid Hungry campaign. Generation No Kid Hungry engages youth audiences, especially on social media, with the goal of spreading hunger awareness to families, friends, and educators. By supporting the campaign, Sodexo is helping at-risk students keep their minds on their studies, not their stomachs.

3. Planting the seed of philanthropy

To succeed, nonprofit foundations rely on the generosity of their supporters. Today’s students, whether they know it or not, will soon be the ones carrying the torch for some of America’s most impactful charities.

Organizations like St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital are already hard at work wooing the next generation. Two of the hospital’s most well-known events — Math-A-Thon and Trike-A-Thon — engage students and teach life skills, of course, but they also leave positive memories of philanthropy behind.

Get a Smart Start

Teachers care about their students first and foremost. Any business or nonprofit initiative aimed at them won’t find a foothold unless it can bring fresh, innovative, and helpful lessons into the classroom.

Before launching a campaign, be sure to understand teachers’ unique needs. With informative content about teachers’ challenges and motivations, sites like We Are Teachers and School Leaders Now are perfect places to start.

Together, teachers, students, and parents can change the world. They’ve got the numbers and the drive — now all they need is the cause.

Bernadette Grey is the chief marketing strategist at MDR, the nation’s leading education marketing group. Prior to joining MDR, Bernadette was an editorial director at Scholastic. A New York City native and the mother of two software engineers, Bernadette spends her spare time in the mountains of Vermont, where she owns a home.

Image credit: Flickr / Mundial Perspectives

By Kate Danaher

Many of us rely on a cup of coffee to kickstart our day. Few realize that our ritual is endangered: the plant producing the beans for our morning pick-me-up is under threat. Coffee experts describe the fight against “la roya,” or leaf rust, as a war. Who’s fighting on the front line? Small-scale coffee farmers and their families, who typically don’t have the financial reserves to deal with the hit on production and income caused by this vicious disease.

Coffee leaf rust is a fungus that creates rustlike patches on coffee plant leaves. The patches turn black, the plant’s nutrient supply is cut off, and eventually the plant may die. Farmers facing the highly contagious disease must replant their land. However, it takes three years before a coffee plant is mature enough to produce a large crop of beans, so farmers face the triple impact of a reduced income, the cost of replanting, and a three-year wait for a salable crop. Despite growing demand for coffee, farmers struggle to get access to credit to build their resilience against this disease.

Small-scale suppliers lack access to credit

Coffee farmers aren’t the only fair-trade suppliers dealing with a lack of access to affordable loans. The U.S.-based fair-trade brands that RSF Social Finance works with often tell us that they’d like to buy more from their local suppliers or help those suppliers capture more value for their communities, but a dearth of available credit hampers suppliers’ growth.

Why is finance in such short supply? Trade finance—designed to provide the short-term financing farmers need while growing, harvesting and selling their products—is well established, but capital expenditure (CapEx) financing, enabling smaller enterprises to acquire or upgrade physical assets, is not.

Many fair-trade suppliers lack access to lenders specializing in small and midsize enterprises, and even when they have access, the loans are often too costly. Underwriting a small loan is just as time-consuming and expensive as underwriting a large one, and the risks involved in lending to small-scale suppliers are greater. Few local suppliers have the collateral needed to secure a loan, and many don’t keep the kind of detailed records needed to prove credit-worthiness to a bank. The result is that even when a supplier can get loans, the interest rates start at 12 percent and can be as high as 30 percent. Small fair-trade producers can’t afford that, especially when the loans terms are three to five years.

Trust underwriting enables affordability

The issues around funding fair-trade supply chains got an airing at a panel I hosted at SOCAP in 2015. Since then, a handful of lenders have come forward with different approaches to bridging the funding gap.

At RSF we’ve developed a unique program based on trust underwriting. We partner with fair-trade companies we know well (our borrowers and former borrowers) to provide loans to their suppliers through our Fair Trade Capital Collaborative. We make our decisions based on our relationships with these companies: we trust them, so we’re willing to rely on them to accurately assess the reliability of their suppliers. That means we can forgo some aspects of traditional due diligence and deliver affordable loans to those suppliers. By saving on the costs of sending someone to a remote part of the world to assess the risk and then writing a complex loan agreement, and by drawing on philanthropic rather than investment funds, we’ve been able to keep rates under 10 percent. And in line with our integrated capital approach, we also fund technical assistance, which small-scale suppliers often need to succeed.

Equal Exchange, a provider of organic, fair-trade coffee, chocolate, cocoa and other products, was one of the first to take advantage of trust underwriting. On the basis of our relationship with Equal Exchange, we have provided loans to three coffee cooperatives in Chiapas, Mexico, allowing them to replant with leaf rust–resistant varieties. We also provided them with a technical assistance grant to support field-based training on organic soil management techniques that aid in the fight against la roya. The result is more resilient coffee farms and a continuing supply of fair-trade coffee for Equal Exchange.

Our latest trust underwriting relationship is with Guayakí, an organic yerba mate beverage company that’s committed to restoring the Atlantic rainforest in South America. Guayakí exclusively sources its main ingredient from cooperatives and small-scale farmers who harvest yerba mate from under the rainforest canopy. While it has a reliable supply of this caffeinated plant native to the rainforest, it’s been unable to find a local processor that can keep up with Guayakí’s growing need for drying and milling the crop. RSF has partnered with Beneficial Returns, which specializes in loans to social enterprises in emerging markets, on a loan to Guayakí that solves this challenge. Our financing will enable Guayakí to build and outfit a processing facility in Brazil that will meet its volume and quality needs while creating more jobs for local people.

Lenders take steps in the right direction

In the same way that consumers support fair-trade companies, I’m optimistic that lenders will start to find ways to support fair-trade suppliers at affordable rates. The growing awareness of the challenges of financing fair-trade supply chains is the first step toward more innovation in the sector. The seeds have been planted: alongside RSF Social Finance and Beneficial Returns, Root Capital is also providing local suppliers with affordable CapEx financing.

The fair-trade movement has already transformed the lives of thousands around the world, and with greater investment, fair-trade supply chains could transform entire communities.

Kate Danaher is senior manager for social enterprise lending and integrated capital at RSF Social Finance (@RSFSocFinance), an innovative lending, giving and investing organization based in San Francisco.

Image credit: Carly Kadlec, Equal Exchange

 

COMMIT!Forum will convene hundreds of corporate social responsibility leaders and CEOs from CR Magazine’s annual 100 Best Corporate Citizens ranking.  The event includes a pre-conference workshop on integrated CSR and sustainability reporting from BrownFlynn. Join MGM's Chief Diversity and CR Officer Phyllis James, Terracycle CEO Tom Szaky, Leidos CEO Roger Krone on the corporate response to the opioid epidemic at the 2017 Commit!Forum in Washington, D.C., this October. 3p readers get 20% off with discount code 3P2017CF

Few institutions in the nation’s capital are older than WGL Holdings. Its history dates back to 1848, the same year the Washington Monument’s construction began and 15 years before the U.S. Capitol’s iconic dome was completed. In fact, one of the company’s first projects (when it was known as Washington Gas) was to build a power plant that could reliably source and deliver gas necessary to light the Capitol’s dome. In addition, one of the chartered company’s most important missions was to ensure D.C.’s streets were safely lit at night. A decade after its founding, the company boasted 30 miles of gas mains, 500 street lights and 1,700 customers.

No one talked about “sustainability” or “energy efficiency” during the mid-nineteenth century, though Washington Gas had already become adept at procuring natural gas and coal at a competitive price – necessary to accommodate the rapidly-growing city and crucial when the country lurched into the Civil War.

Over a century and a half later, the company’s Capitol Power Plant has increased its reliance even more on natural gas as its primary fuel source. The cogeneration plant produces steam and electricity together, allowing for a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants. By supplying both power and heat for the Capitol's buildings and grounds, this system increases reliability, improves efficiency and saves taxpayers money.

Today, the business jargon, economic climate and consumer needs all have shifted, but WGL’s commitment to keeping D.C. heated and electrified has never wavered – and now it is focused on doing so sustainably and responsibly, as demonstrated by that power plant still operating in southeast D.C.

“That evolution mirrors our own; innovating and finding energy answers for the last 169 years,” said John Friedman, sustainability manager for WGL Holdings. Those answers involve delivering both cost-effective and secure power and heat to customers across the greater D.C. region.

A focus on finding solutions for its customers’ energy needs has helped WGL build upon its success as it generates approximately $2.5 billion in revenues annually. But in recent years, the company has confronted newer challenges, such as delivering energy while it both mitigates and adapts to climate change risks.

Not that the company’s overall mission has changed much. “Interestingly enough, when the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed upon in Paris, one of them was ‘ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all,” said Friedman.

WGL appears to be on the right path, in both aligning with the SDGs and modernizing its delivery of power and heat. The company says it is investing millions of dollars in upgrading and updating pipelines and monitoring systems. These upgrades help reduce emissions, and according to WGL they are more resilient and safe. As a result, WGL has decreased the carbon emissions intensity of its delivered natural gas by 20 percent between 2008 and 2014, faster than the goals the company had initially set. This year, WGL added a new sustainability goal: to help customers save 18 million metric tons of CO2 between 2015 and 2025. “That’s a tall order and is based on our confidence in a strong and growing market,” explained Friedman, “as well as our ability to meet that demand with offers that meet customers’ desires and expectations.”

Several challenges, of course, confront WGL as it seeks to curb emissions while meeting the needs of a growing population. In the short term, the company has to look at how it can accomplish its goals with expensive infrastructure already in place. The company has plenty of data at hand - as in the fact that replacing coal in existing power plants across the U.S. has cut emissions nearly 9 percent from peak levels of 6 billion metric tons in 2007. For each unit of energy produced, a megawatt-hour (MWh) of natural gas-fired generation contributes about half the amount of emissions as coal-fired generation, according to the Energy Information Administration. But phasing out coal in favor of natural gas is only the beginning.

The company also has set long-term goals, such as more interest in the development of clean energy technologies. Renewables accounted for 14.94 percent of U.S. electricity in 2016. Most energy experts agree they will become the second largest source of power behind natural gas by 2028. “We see natural gas, which is abundant and affordable can come on line when things like solar and wind are not producing power, as a natural partner in providing affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy,” said Friedman.

There are additional hurdles WGL must tackle in the coming decade, such as the company’s pilot program to explore the potential of biogas. Much of it currently leaks into the atmosphere – but these gases, such as methane, could be stored and supply energy for WGL’s customers. In addition, energy storage stands in the way of renewables from scaling up even faster. “How can we capture that power and store it for when it may be needed?” asked Friedman.

Another challenge is the loss of energy while it is transmitted to homes and businesses. Natural gas retains 92 percent of its energy when distributed from its original source to homes; electricity, however, only has a retention rate of only 32 percent as it is transmitted to buildings. So even if the sources of energy evolve, WGL and its competitors are reliant on technological advances if they can continue to provide affordable energy with minimal impact on the environment.

For WGL, the SDGs are a way to harness the vital role energy can affect other goals, including health, quality of life, economic opportunity and of course, mitigating climate change. The riddle the company must solve is ensuring that energy access is still affordable while it becomes more responsible.

“Finding the ‘best’ solution requires that we look at all those dimensions,” said Friedman. “Something that isn’t affordable cannot be a solution. We know that ‘energy poverty,’ as in spending more than 40 percent of a household income on energy, is an issue around the world, in the US and in our area. So, we have to always make sure that we’re not putting the benefits of energy out of reach of those who need it.”

Therefore, if renewables will be further integrated into D.C.’s grid, reliability will be essential. Challenges including offering reliable affordable service, in order for energy to be readily available when and where WGL’s customers need it. To that end, Friedman pointed out that system reliability is one of the key metrics on the company’s scorecard. In 2016, the company had a 99.7 percent target of customers who experienced no unplanned service interruptions; by year-end the company exceed that goal with an impressive 99.85 rate. Now the company is in the middle of one of the largest upgrades it has ever undertaken, with an added benefit that these new materials and equipment will also decrease emissions.

From Friedman’s point of view, “sustainability” is not just about mounting hurdles, but about finding opportunities. “We cannot cling to the past because the world is changing, and with it, our understanding,” he said. “We instead must embrace and create the future we want. New technologies, innovations, a focus on efficiency and highest and best use will define what energy looks like 169 years from now.”

Image credit: WGL Holdings

 

By Marc de Sousa Shields

Coffee sprayed from my mouth when I read JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMC) was recently recognized by Fortune as the number one company in its annual "Change the World" list.

Why?

Banks, particularly investment banks, in my mind, are second only to payday lenders as the resident evil of the banking industry. Sure, we need them, but unless you’ve live in a cave, you will remember the financial melt-down precipitated banks in 2008. You may also recall their dogged instance on deregulation since, or their obscenely high senior manager compensation in times of grotesque inequality.

I freely admit my reaction was based as much on what happened in 2008 and the resulting branding which stuck in my mind; I admit grudges are an unfair basis upon which to judge.

So, I decided to do some research and prove my distaste for (investment) banks in general and JPMC specifically. To my dismay… I found much to like.

For example, Fortune’s list recognized companies doing well by doing good, by addressing a sustainability problem, meaning JPMC was not selected for its overall sustainability performance but for revitalizing efforts in Detroit.

Looking at their private, public, and civil society model with its focus on small business, well, it’s clear the bank understands comprehensive local economic development. It’s so good, in fact, others and myself are likely to use its ideas in countries as far flung as Bangladesh and Nigeria.

Operationally, the bank is not awful. JMPC has notable internal and external stakeholder engagement, decent approaches to sustainable real estate management, and advanced diversity and gender policies. None perfect, all at least as good as their competitors.

The bank is also looking to use clean power only, and as of 2016, 100 percent of its purchased electricity in the UK, Germany and Luxembourg is from renewable sources. In the U.S., JMPC purchases a serious carbon energy and travel offsets via certified Renewable Energy Credits.

The bank also runs with a solid sustainability crowd, from Business and Sustainable Development Commission, Ceres, Equator Principles, Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, Global Impact Investing Network, Green Bond Principles, U.N. Principles for Responsible Investment, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

But what about the $13 billion in fines for their role in 2008? Can’t pin all that on JPMC. Many of these fines came with JPMC’s (arguably) market-strengthening buy outs of Washington Mutual and Chase Bank.

JPMC did play the collateralized debt obligation game to the tune of around 20 percent of market share, but Jamie Dimon, the then newish CEO, cemented his risk management reputation by devolving out the business starting in 2006-7.

Several small- to medium-sized dubious ethical practices have occurred since, including the London Whale incident which incurred $6.2 billion losses in 2012. Small ball really, and nothing compared to most other banks.

The most substantial sustainability impact liabilities most financial institutions have, however, are found below the operating waterline: in their financing of companies which do irreparable harm to communities and the environment.

JPMC?

Like many banks, JPMC has a coherent sustainability financing strategy and asset management philosophy, defined, and staffed for each of its four main operating units.

It is also considered one of the largest funders of renewable energy in the U.S, committing or arranging nearly $20 billion wind, solar and geothermal projects between 2003 and 2016, with a promise of $200 billion in 2017.

JPMC also makes small “impact investments” in international and national funds such as MicroVest II (microfinance), LeapFrog Financial Inclusion Fund (micro-insurance), and Bridges Social Entrepreneurs Fund (social enterprise venture capital). And then there is the $150 million commitment in Detroit.

This is all good; but aside from Detroit, not much different from its competitors, and certainly much less than banking institutions like Triodos or VanCity.

One can also question the bank’s sustainability investment principles for not having concrete language available to Jane and Joe Public. This reduces its accountability, or, our ability to find out exactly what they invest in or not, and why. They do state coal and other forms of dirty energy are out, which is good to hear, but honestly, these days, that’s just good risk management.

Here is the rub.

Sure, JPMC is doing some good sustainability things, and in some ways, is a large financial institution sustainability pioneer.

But as a former banker and sustainable investment practitioner, I remain despondent that the bank has only 20 percent of long-term assets under management (AUM) filtered through environmental, social and governance criteria.

Knowing what we do about sustainability filters in practice, and like most sustainable and responsible investments in general, a good portion of JPMC’s sustainable AUM could simply avoid no brainers like tobacco and coal. Meanwhile, 80 percent, or $2 trillion, could be merrily financing all sorts of bad.

(By contrast, any one with internet access can see and judge exactly what is in any Domini Social Investment or PAX World, and we know all their AUM are assessed for sustainability).

All this said and done, I remain optimistically jaded in the face of the bank’s potential, and grudgingly happy to celebrate JPMC’s aspirational efforts.

Still, it strikes me unfair that the bank, wittingly or not, arbitrages far greater sustainability (and conventional) brand value than its quite modest sustainability performance justifies.

Banks could be the single most powerful private sector source of change supporting transformational corporate sustainability efforts, alas they are not.

Nonetheless, bravo JPMC, you deserve Fortune’s accolades, but please do more. Much more.

Marc de Sousa Shields writes on sustainability and is author of Invest Like You Give a Damn: Make Money, Change the World, Sleep Well at Night (New Society Publishing, November 2017).

Image credit: Steve Jurvetson

 

 

It may seem odd that a bank is saying environmental stewardship does not come at the expense of jobs, yet Bank of America is making that exact case.

According to a report the financial services giant released this week, the $12.6 billion its various business units invested from 2013 to last year supported almost 40,000 jobs, contributed almost $15 billion to GDP and generated close to $30 billion in total economic output.

Those investments comprise just a small part of what Bank of America says will be a long-term total of $125 billion total in what it describes as an “environmental business commitment.”

The majority of these jobs, or over 50 percent in total, are within the broader energy efficiency industry, and include employment linked to building retrofits or more efficient lighting installations. More than 40 percent of these newly-created jobs lie within the clean energy sector, including wind power, solar and other renewable power technologies. The rest of the jobs, approximately 6 percent, are within the nascent electric vehicles industry.

Bank of America’s statistics should catch the eye of local leaders who often seek economic development by tactics such as building big box stores or distribution centers - and count the resulting low-wage, part-time employment as "jobs." Citing data from EY, the bank claims that its investments have led to jobs in the clean energy sector that on average pay over $80,000 a year. Jobs in the energy efficiency sector on average pay significantly less, or just over $57,000 a year – but that is not shabby when considering that average compensation in the U.S. hovers around $57,700 annually.

These projects and resulting jobs also have their environmental benefits, of course. Bank of America claims that its recent investments have helped prevent almost 2.4 million metric tons of emissions last year – the equivalent of removing over 500,000 cars off the road for one year.

One of the projects Bank of America highlights is in Minnesota. The bank recently partnered with D.E. Shaw Renewable Investments (DESRI), a 30-year-old global investment and technology development firm with over $42 billion in capital investments. The outcome was a $110 million tax equity investment that helped financed North Star Solar Project, a 100-megawatt utility-scale solar power installation. Touted as the largest solar power project in the Midwest, its 400,000 photovoltaic modules generate enough clean power to electrify approximately 20,000 homes annually. Local news reports said during its construction, the project kept 300 construction workers employed. Since its launch this year, a division of DESRI, which has over 1,300 employees, will manage the day-to-day operation of the installation.

In concluding its report, Bank of America offers a conclusion that could be taken as a swipe at the current White House:

“The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement represented a commitment from countries and companies alike to make that happen — understanding it would take tens of trillions of dollars in financing to make that transition a success.”

The Trump White House may have reaffirmed its plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but the private sector has had made it clear that it is business as usual – and investors, such as Bank of America, will even make a profit off of balancing profits with sustainable development.

Image credit: D. E. Shaw Renewable Investments

One of President Donald Trump's first actions as president was to cut funding to family planning programs.  It's the kind of announcement that  seems on the surface to be rather minor in the scope of global challenges: money to help women have (or not have) children? (I can hear Trump's reasoning on this): Why should the U.S. help fund family planning goals?

But family planning programs actually have far greater impact than helping people decide when and how many kids to have. And contrary to the way it was portrayed by the media at the time, it really isn't about limiting reproductive services to women around the world (a headline that Quartz couldn't pass up with the ah-hah photo of a roomful of men celebrating the executive order).

Family planning programs have to do directly with world health. They are often the silent partners to a whole range of sustainable goals that determine the resiliency of developing countries: reducing maternal mortality, child malnutrition and increasing access to education for future generations (education often being at the expense of health and financial demands), and the many other targets the UN has outlined as essential goals for global security and sustainability.

And the thing about many of those goals is that their success are interconnected: Eradicating widespread poverty requires creating jobs and opportunities in developing countries. Sustainable cities and communities are dependent upon their access to clean water and affordable and clean energy. Access and use of quality education is only really possible if you have healthy communities that aren't at risk to epidemics. And sustainable life on land and in the oceans requires addressing the instigators of climate change.

Bill and Melinda Gates have been outspoken about the importance of those 17 UN goals and committed supporters toward efforts to reduce global poverty. Of recent, they have also been outspoken about their concern that the world is no longer on solid track to meet many of those 17 goals -- issues that only a year or two ago seemed like realistic, attainable benchmarks. And yes, reduced funding from one of the richest leading nations in the world is a big concern as well.

So they have come up with the plan. And like so many plans they have endorsed in the past (eradicating mosquito-borne diseases, increasing technical expertise in African nations, etc.) they start with a simple premise:

Motivating ingenuity and optimism changes communities.

Today and tomorrow the Gates are hosting two unusual events with that very concept in mind. They have invited some of the world's most recent examples of humanitarian and social influencers to relate and celebrate some of the inspiring stories behind the world's accomplishments so far, like just how the world managed to halve mortality statistics for kids under 5 in less than 8 years, what it means to find a cure for diseases like malaria or polio and the real, human impact of reducing HIV in vulnerable communities.

As the Gates point out, the data we collect about world accomplishments is fascinating. But it is the human stories behind those wins that tell the next generation that goals that seem out of reach are really possible.

They have also released a report that lays out just what benefits will be gained by meeting each of those goals -- and the risks that lie ahead if we don't. Not addressing infant malnutrition, for example sets the world on path for increased infant mortality and all of the  problems that go along with the heartbreak and financial insecurity of not being able to plan for a family's long term future.

The two-day event, which starts tonight and is presented in partnership with UNICEF takes place in New York and will be live-streamed. The Goalkeepers project has a clear objective in mind: to remind communities not just how important the goals are, but of their individual roles in attaining them. And, while the Gates never really say it, it's to remind us that the political policies that are coming out of Washington this year don't have to be transformative to the planet's future.

But we do.

More information about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's efforts can be found at the Goalkeepers home page.

https://youtu.be/dDDorAzTxgs

Image: GlobalGoals.org (Project Everyone and the Global Goals Campaign)