Search

Mohawk's new Airo line is the first to meet the long-stated, lofty recycling goals of one of America's most wasteful industries. Whether it will herald a shift toward a circular economy for carpets, though, remains to be seen.

At a glance, this seems big. Mohawk is the second largest carpet manufacturer in the United States, and its introduction of a fully-recyclable line of carpets seems like a big step in the right direction.

And in many ways, it is. The product seems well-designed. The Airo Carpets are 100 percent recyclable because, unlike most carpets -- which are made from a mix of materials that are difficult to break apart, as is necessary for most industrial recycling systems -- they are made of only polyester. It is a big change for an industry that, until now, touted products made of recycled materials that themselves could not be recycled.

Still, it's 2017. If you're surprised that there hasn't yet been a recyclable carpet yet, you should be. The carpet industry has positioned itself as green and eco-friendly for years -- even forming a organization, the Carpet America Recovery Effort, to facilitate carpet recycling. But for the most part, it was just show, as more than 3.5 billion pounds of carpet ends up in landfills each year.

Late last year, a report released by Changing Markets and GAIA found rampant greenwashing in the carpet industry. They also documented lobbying efforts against mandatory recycling efforts in states across the country.

“The industry set its own goal for recycling, but their efforts to meet their goal were weak and instead of increasing recycling rates, they have more than doubled incineration,” Miriam Gordon of GAIA said in a press statement.

Mohawk was just as much a part of this as its competitors, which is why many are skeptical of the Airo line. While it is a well-designed, recyclable product, does its introduction mean that Mohawk will provide free pick-up services for old carpets? Will it help ensure that recycling plants can profitably process these carpets?

Without investments in a circular economy infrastructure, Airo carpets will end up where all of Mohawk's other, less recyclable carpets do – in landfills. Eco-friendly design is, often, not enough.

While the Airo Line is a step in the right direction, it remains to be seen whether this is truly a sign of change in a dirty industry, or just the latest in greenwash marketing aimed at selling products with no intention of creating a circular economy in the carpet industry.

Image credit: Koala Park Laundromat via pixabay

Amazon has not always had the most sterling reputation when it comes to sustainability, transparency and environmental performance. The emissions from those packages alone are just the start, say the company’s critics. But there is evidence that the online delivery and cloud computing giant is turning a corner. The company claims it is powering more data centers with renewable energy, and its founder, Jeff Bezos, is a huge advocate of wind power.

Now, Amazon is doubling down on rooftop solar. That should be an easy task for the company, considering how many fulfillment centers it operates in the U.S. alone. The company claims it manages over 70 warehouses that in part house its 90,000 employees. Whether they are harnessing new algorithms, or rushing about a cavernous fulfillment center boxing your order of retinol cream, organic dog treats, cacao nibs and face mud packs, Amazon’s employees consume a lot of electricity.

Investments in solar can help Amazon reduce costs, even though the price of fossil fuels is in a 30-month slump. Solar prices are also falling, and it's an attractive option for companies trying to hedge their energy costs.

To that end, Amazon says it will install 15 photovoltaic systems on various facilities across the U.S. this year. Another 50 installations will appear in the U.S. and atop some overseas locations by 2020.

This year alone, new solar projects in California, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada and New Jersey will generate 41 megawatts of power. Amazon claims that each solar installation will generate 80 percent of the facility’s annual electricity needs on average.

That statistic should not be too surprising. After all, the company’s fulfillment center in the San Joaquin Valley town of Paterson, California, will score a solar installation of almost 760,000 square feet – with plenty of room to spare on the 1.1. million-square-foot complex. Add the company’s wind power investments, and Amazon was the largest corporate purchaser of clean energy in the U.S. last year, with a total of 3.6 million megawatt hours on the books, according to one report.

As of press time, Amazon did not disclose how much it expects to save financially from this renewables investments. But such a pivot by a company as huge as Amazon can have a multiplier effect, especially within the solar industry -- which, according to some analysts, was responsible for creating 1 in 50 new American jobs last year. On that point, the company says it is offering opportunities for employees who are considering a transition into the solar energy field. The company’s career program, which fronts most of the costs for fees, tuition and books for employees who seek a new career in high-demand occupations, includes a solar installation certification as an option.

Amazon’s solar push is part of what the company describes as its “inventive culture” on the sustainability front.

The company insists it is doing its part to decrease excess packaging (and one of its symptoms, “wrap rage”). One such tactic is encouraging customers to fill up empty Amazon boxes with unwanted clothing and household goods; those boxes in turn can be shipped for free to one of the company’s partner NGOs.

Amazon’s downtown Seattle campus is known for energy-efficient buildings and easy to navigate around on bicycle. And in response to those critical of the company’s labor policies, Amazon says it is working on a more ethical supply chain that respects human rights.

Image credit: P2 Photography via Amazon

 

North Central Texas is one of many drought-prone regions in the U.S. Fortunately, a partnership between two Texas cities and a packaging and hygiene solutions company helps conserve water in this region -- and it shows how public-private partnerships can help towns fight water scarcity.

Sealed Air’s plant in Iowa Park, Texas, linked up with local municipalities -- including Iowa Park and Wichita Falls -- on a water reuse project that will conserve 18 million to 20 million gallons of drinking water annually. Instead of using potable water in its chiller process, the plant is now equipped to use recycled effluent water from Iowa Park’s wastewater treatment plant. 

The project was jointly funded by Sealed Air, Iowa Park’s Economic Development Corp. and Community Development Corp., and the Wichita Falls Economic Development Corp. The partners completed a water pipeline in 2015 to allow free flow of water between the manufacturing site and the water treatment plant. The city of Iowa Park installed equipment to treat and filter the effluent water, in addition to constructing the pipeline.

For those who aren't familiar with the term and may be prone to an ick factor, effluent water has multiple safe and hygienic uses that can save money and reduce water stress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation calls effluent water "a drought-proof water source that can be achieved at a lower lifecycle cost than that of developing a new water supply option while delivering environmental co-benefits."

North Central Texas entered its fifth year of drought in fall 2014, and reservoirs were only 20 percent of capacity. “The outlook was very concerning,” Barry Hardin, North American operations director for food care at Sealed Air, told TriplePundit.

Hardin worked as the plant manager at Sealed Air’s Iowa Park facility while the project was underway. Sealed Air did a research study on its plant’s water use and found that cooling-tower water represented the largest water consumption process, taking up a third of the plant’s potable water consumption (up to 20 million gallons annually). “Comparison studies indicated that this type of water use could be a good candidate for effluent water as opposed to using a potable water source,” Hardin explained.

The solution was designing a system to use effluent water from the Iowa Park wastewater treatment facility. Through a “cooperative effort” between the cities of Iowa Park and Wichita Falls, the Iowa Park Economic Development Corp., and Sealed Air, “a $1.5 million project was initiated to provide Type I effluent water to area industry,” Hardin told 3p. 

The partnership benefited both the local community and Sealed Air: It helps to conserve clean drinking water for communities in drought-prone North Texas. And since the installation of the effluent water treatment facility in Iowa Park, potable water use at the Sealed Air plant dropped by 40 percent.

Some of America's water infrastructure dates back to the Civil War. As Michael Deane, executive director of the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), wrote in a 2014 op/ed: “The reality is we need an acute sense of urgency to fix a long-neglected, complex system of pipes, pumps, valves, tanks and treatment facilities across this nation.”

And one of the solutions, Deane explained, is public-private partnerships(P3s). Water and waste-water P3s “have proven they can deliver solutions to this nation’s municipalities and close the infrastructure gap in less time,” Deane concluded.

How other companies can get involved

Sealed Air’s partnership with the cities of Iowa Park and Wichita Falls serves as an example of how other companies can successfully initiate and complete a water or wastewater infrastructure P3s.

 

But, of course, water-reduction efforts must first start within a company's own four walls. If companies are serious about water conservation, collaboration with the communities in which they do business is a natural progression. Or, as Hardin advised, “Always work on internal efforts to reduce total water consumption, and actively partner with local leaders to initiate creative ways to conserve potable water for the community through innovative collaboration.”

How can companies approach governments about a partnership such as this one in North Central Texas? “It is very important to ensure that all parties clearly understand the goal and the long-term economic and social benefits of these types of projects,” Hardin told us. Sealed Air understood the cost benefit, the cities understood the positive economic impact, and citizens in the area understand the overall benefits for water conservation, he explained.

And full agreement between all parties is key. “City leaders from Iowa Park, Wichita Falls, and leaders from SAC were in full agreement that a cooperative effort was in the best interest of the residents of the community and local industry,” Hardin told 3p.

These stakeholders each focused on the benefits their partnership would bring to both residents and industry in the North Central Texas, and they “weren't inhibited by the boundaries of ‘city limit’ signs.”

Hardin added that the “early adoption of this mindset allowed the team to concentrate on the broad benefits of the project rather than the traditional approach of a narrower scope within each group.”

Indeed success stories like these prove what's possible when public and private stakeholders come together around common goals. As global challenges like climate change and resource scarcity make business in the 21st century seem more uncertain than ever, we can expect to see more collaborations like these come across our news feeds.

Image credit: Pixabay

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Autodesk's Redshift blog.

By Lynelle Cameron

Most people don’t see themselves as having the personal power or influence to make a compelling difference in climate change.

But so many of the design decisions made every day have a climate implication; each one can help promote a low-carbon future that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels. Those who create the products and built environments of everyday life—from mechanical engineers to architects—have an important role to play by designing for climate change.

Understanding the problem

Climate change is real and progressing: 2016 was the hottest year on record, for the third consecutive year. The effects of climate change are clear in rising sea levels, more frequent and intense storms, droughts, and floods. These changes in weather patterns create resource scarcity, displaced communities, increased risk of disease, and political and economic turmoil—all profoundly impacting people’s lives. Global warming is more than an environmental issue; it’s a human issue.

But it’s also a business issue. Energy is one of the largest contributors to climate change, accounting for 84 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. And as temperatures rise, so will energy costs, the EPA predicts.

Fortunately, the 2015 Paris climate agreement is an encouraging step toward ensuring those rising energy needs don’t mean catastrophe for the planet. The Agreement forged a consensus among 197 nations (despite recent claims that U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to withdraw) to keep average worldwide temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, thus averting climate calamity. But to achieve that, there’s work to be done.

Design and climate change

The most significant way designers and engineers can address the climate-change challenge is by designing for higher productivity. Increased productivity requires maximizing value (output) while minimizing costs (inputs, such as energy and material resources).

In terms of architecture and construction, that could mean designing buildings that use less energy. On the manufacturing side, it could be designing products that last longer and use less virgin material. One thing is certain: Energy and resource productivity is paramount in all forms of design.

Designers and engineers who are aiming for higher productivity—and thus addressing climate change—typically employ these five approaches:

1. Ask energy-productivity questions up front

From the start, asking questions such as, “What is the energy implication of this design decision?” or “How will this choice increase energy and resource productivity?” ensures designers and engineers keep costs down while adding value. It’s important to raise these questions early—such as when choosing a building’s site or selecting a material for a new product—and often, thereby setting the precedent for continued sustainable design choices throughout the life of the project. Those seemingly small decisions add up to big impacts.

Shanghai Tower, China’s tallest building, saved 25 percent of its material costs because the architects focused on how to lightweight the structure while maintaining its strength. And they did that by analyzing how wind would strike the building and then shaping it into a twist so that it would cut through the wind. Those decisions were planned from the beginning of the project, not tacked on as a “green” afterthought.

2. Model, simulate and repeat

It is now easier than ever to evaluate early design decisions by using simulation technology to quickly model and test alternatives. Electronics company Opto22 discovered this firsthand. The company analyzed the electronic cooling for its Groov hardware interface (used to control the Bellagio Hotel fountains, among other things) with the goal to give the device a smaller form factor. The redesigned interface eliminated all moving parts, including two fans, resulting in greater energy efficiency, reduced raw-material requirements, and lowered costs for assembly and labor—a full 70 percent savings in labor costs.

If designers and engineers, like Opto22, use the simulation tools available today, they can run the early analyses that yield similar energy, material, or time savings—while also saving money. But project stakeholders must be aware of the gains so that they start to expect and even demand sustainable practices throughout the design and engineering process.

3. Take the long-term view

It’s important that designers and engineers make long-term decisions that consider the product or project lifecycle. Take industrial-fan manufacturer Howden France, for example. The company analyzed its fan wheels (PDF), accounting for fatigue and adjusting their thickness and weight. Optimizing the wheels’ weight enabled Howden to reduce the fan’s inertia, leading to better lifetime performance and reducing the power required for the motor. And that led to lower operating costs—a big win for customers.

Designing for repair is also key; after all, the most sustainable product is often the one that lasts the longest. HP knew this when it released the Elite x2 1012 G1 tablet. The company offers online repair documentation and readily available replacement parts so that users can repair their units themselves.

4. Consider the whole system

Designers and engineers who use the process of whole-systems thinking consider the relationships among complex systems, instead of focusing on individual parts of systems. This is important because challenges such as climate change represent a set of interconnected issues that can’t be solved in isolation. By taking a big-picture view and considering the whole system, the most important opportunities often arise, and can be incorporated, early in the process.

The team behind the Urbee hybrid electric car applied whole-systems thinking to the goal of producing an affordable, fast, safe method of personal transportation that runs on a small amount of energy. By taking into account all the interdependent factors and uncovering issues they could address up front, the team was able to deliver a fuel-efficient hybrid that gets 150 miles to the gallon and weighs just 1,200 pounds.

5. Communicate

Designing for higher productivity will result in cost savings for customers and more value delivered. But those victories must be communicated to customers. It’s up to designers and engineers to educate their clients, suppliers, subcontractors, and colleagues about the choices that can make a real difference to the bottom line—and to climate change.

Global architecture and engineering firm HOK has taken significant steps in this area by signing on to the AIA 2030 Commitment. This national framework tracks progress toward meeting the Architecture 2030 Challenge, which charges the worldwide design-build community with achieving carbon neutrality on all new buildings, developments, and major renovations by 2030.

“More of our designers are engaged in energy discussions with clients, engineers, contractors, and consultants,” said Anica Landreneau, HOK’s director of sustainable consulting. “Having discussions about energy efficiency earlier and more frequently in the design process has enabled us to identify significant first-cost and operational savings for our clients.”

Simply put, sustainable design is good design. And responding to climate change is much more pressing today than ever before. If more designers and engineers commit to asking efficiency questions early, using simulation and analysis tools, and taking a long-term and whole-system view, the climate-change needle will move. And the best part is, they’ll be reducing emissions while increasing value for their customers.

Image courtesy of Autodesk

Lynelle Cameron is President & CEO of the Autodesk Foundation and Senior Director of Sustainability at Autodesk, Inc. She founded both to invest in and support people who are using design to solve today’s most epic challenges. Prior to Autodesk, Lynelle led sustainability teams at HP and has 10 years of experience in the nonprofit sector at the intersection of conservation and economic development with WWF, TMI, and NOLS. Lynelle serves on the Board of CEH, Innovators International, UC Berkeley CRB, and previously Biomimicry 3.8 and Net Impact. Lynelle has degrees from UC Berkeley, U of Michigan, and Middlebury College.

By Joshua Levin

You may have voted against U.S. President Donald Trump, protested his policies, and ranted to your friends. Yet most of us are financing him and his agenda. With any typical investment account, 401(k) or pension, Americans indirectly fund their opposition parties and directly finance polarizing activities such as weapons production, private prisons, and climate change denial.

Yet this gap is starting to close. Ironically, Trump’s election may go down in history as the tipping point for the mainstreaming of ethical investing.

It only makes sense. Unless you live in one of a handful of swing states, your finances provide more influence than your federal ballot. And you can “vote” with your money every day.

Yet Nov. 8 was a wake-up call. The Left felt the political door slam shut, and many are seeking new channels to drive change. While it’s too soon for formal studies, we are hearing reports from across the industry of record interest in socially responsible investing (SRI) and related strategies.

This movement is a milestone in a broader trend. SRI has been growing roughly 33 percent year-over-year since 2012. It now represents 1 in 5 professionally-managed dollars in the U.S. The New York Times recently reported that the number of asset managers and individuals who have divested from fossil fuels in some form has doubled in the last 15 months alone.

Unfortunately, the industry has hardly changed with the times. SRI’s infrastructure still looks a lot like it did 30 years ago, when it was built up for religious groups and the anti-Apartheid movement.

This landscape seemed quite reasonable until recently. Neither ethical investors nor Wall Street ever expected SRI to truly mainstream. They were never able to imagine the implications of this project writ large. What happens if everyone applies their values to their finances? What if each investor wants a customized solution? What if most shareholders voted?

This is not a sci-fi future but an emerging reality furthered by Trump and ultimately driven by the inevitable forces of technology, transparency, and demographics.

No one doubts that we are moving towards a world of “glass houses.” Now anyone can access data on carbon emissions for a publicly-traded company. Data on water risk, controversial products and labor policies is rapidly expanding. And we are in a virtuous cycle, where more usage is creating demand for more transparency.

This information may not matter to you. But it matters greatly to the generation who grew up opining on a vastly expanded world of information. Eighty-four percent of millennials believe their money should support companies that reflect their values. They expect to have a voice. And they are on the receiving end of the largest wealth transfer in history -- US $1 trillion per year from baby boomers to millennials.

Accommodating millennials’ demands for customization, values and empowerment can be supported by current technologies. Yet it is stymied by the vested interests of the current financial food chain. The average American investor has up to 16 intermediaries/fee layers between her and the companies she owns. These agents often rely on lack of transparency and prescribed models to maintain their position.

Another justification for financial intermediaries was that, in the past, it never made sense to aggregate and reconcile the views of all individual shareholders of a company. So while the public directly and indirectly owns nearly 80 percent of U.S. stock markets, and the CEOs technically work for and report to us, we feel diffuse and powerless. In the future, however, all the shareholders of Chevron will be having a conversation about what Chevron should be doing.

As you remove intermediaries, and replace them with automated systems that provide transparency and customization, you change the incentives of the market. Our agents chase fractions of profits on a daily or quarterly basis. The actual owners of capital – doctors, lawyers, teachers, journalists, etc. – have far more diverse interests. We are concerned about long-term financial performance, transparency into political lobbying, healthy and safe products, climate change, and more.

In a sense, we are returning to the first principles of investing. If you own a company, you have great power and responsibility. This time around, however, we will take that responsibility together, sharing information and creating movements. Our portfolios can always stay passive, while we each screen out the bad stuff, engage the edge cases and favor the good guys. This is the kind of future we are bringing about at OpenInvest.

With new technology and the new generation, all boats will rise in the sustainable finance world. But to excel, financial advisers will need to evolve how they create value. Institutional asset managers, such as pension funds, need to more deeply engage their constituents. Impact investors should broaden the horizons of impact. And companies will need to change how they behave, compete and report.

Empowering individual investors through technology will ultimately force the public economy to grow a conscience – our conscience – unleashing progressive forces more powerful than those that dominate our current political climate. Trump may be the best thing that ever happened to socially responsible investing. But this will be the election he ultimately loses.

Image credit: Pixabay

Joshua Levin is a Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer at OpenInvest, a YCombinator-backed investment adviser dedicated to using technology to mainstream sustainable investing. He previously spent six years at WWF, where he managed the Commodities Finance Program, and has otherwise worked with the Rainforest Alliance, Root Capital, Conservation International in various capacities. He lives with his wife and two sons in Berkeley, CA.

You can reach josh at josh@openinvest.co and follow on Twitter @openinvestco

Trucking is the logistical backbone of the U.S. economy. One of the trucking industry’s leading trade groups estimates that 70 percent of all American freight is transported by trucks. That 10.5 billion tons of goods require as many as 3.5 million truck drivers across the country.

But decent pay, steady work with the boom in online shopping and an opportunity to see much of the country is not proving attractive enough for potential truck drivers.

The long hours and isolating nature of the work turns off many younger people. Furthermore, despite the logistics boom, drivers are not necessarily benefiting from this rising tide, as wages are stuck around $20 an hour – not enough incentive for many to spend most of their time alone, sit for long periods of time and cope with the angst from other motorists.

True, those pay rates are not terrible compared to the average wages of a college graduate. And they are significantly higher than most jobs available to someone who only has a high school diploma. Nevertheless, the downsides of a career in commercial trucking are not enough to lure more drivers. Year-to-year, there are 50,000 more jobs than drivers – and the trucking industry at large has not found a solution to the problem.

Starsky Robotics, a California-based startup, believes it has the long-term solution: self-driving trucks that could haul freight across the country. By retrofitting trucks to drive autonomously, drivers would be able to stay home and spend more time with friends and family. And those same truck drivers would be the ones responsible for the supervision of these driverless trucks, only taking control for the vehicles’ first and last miles of hauling assignments.

The startup says it still needs truck drivers, as they understand what’s involved in trucking logistics -- whether it's a long stretch on the highway or complicated maneuvers to approach or depart a loading dock.

In Starsky's model, drivers sit in a remote module that looks similar to the passenger seat of a truck’s cab. When they turn the steering wheel, the truck to which they are assigned as a monitor turns with them.

“What we’re really trying to do is solve a problem,” said Stefan Seltz-Axmache, co-founder of Starsky Robotics, in a recently released video that explains the startup’s technology. “We’re going to let these people go home every night to spend time with their families, and it’s going to fundamentally make the economy more efficient.

As with the case made by the designers and manufacturers of self-driving cars, Starsky Robotics argues that eliminating human error can make the roads safer while making transportation more efficient overall. Last month, the company tested this theory by hauling 5,000 pounds of empty milk crates for 180 miles, using robotics to drive 80 percent of the time.

The company will seek out truck drivers with at least five years of experience to monitor its fleet of self-driving trucks, Forbes reported in a recent profile. Those drivers will be responsible for monitoring up to 30 trucks at a time.

Starsky Robotics hopes to launch its first regular deliveries within the next few months, with drivers at first sitting in the cab and then operating these vehicles autonomously by the end of this year.

Other autonomous vehicle technology companies are also eyeing the trucking industry. Otto, the startup acquired by Uber and now embroiled in litigation with Google, recently announced a 120-mile driverless delivery of Budweiser beer. Another Silicon Valley startup, Embark, says it has developed a similar highway autopilot system for trucks that could make the industry safer.

Image credit: Starsky Robotics

TGI Friday's announced a new animal welfare policy this week, one of several top food companies to take the plunge into what's becoming a crowded pool. 

TGI Friday's 2024 welfare pledge includes a preference on chicken breeds: The family dining restaurant committed to only source breeds the Global Animal Partnership has identified as slower-growing.

Fast-growing breeds represent 98 percent of all commercially-available chicken meat in North America. But the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) says fast-growing chickens can grow so large that they become crippled from their own body weight, which can result in injuries and sometimes even early death. Slower-growing chickens also need less antibiotics, fewer veterinary visits and are more active.

GAP plans to phase out fast-growing chicken breeds for all levels of its five-step rating program and replace them with slower-growing breeds in the coming years.

TGI Friday’s also committed to source only chickens that are allowed better space allocations and better environments that include litter, lighting and enrichment, in accordance with GAP’s standards. The restaurant company will also only source chickens that are processed through a more humane multi-step process and will ensure that its suppliers comply with its commitments to third-party auditing.

“As more mainstream restaurants commit to improve the conditions for chickens in their supply chains, it is evident that these policies will soon be the industry standard,” David Coman-Hidy, executive director of the Humane League, said in a statement. “TGI Friday’s new policy will provide chickens with basic protections on factory farms that they have not been afforded in the past.”

Au Bon Pain also announced new standards for its broiler chicken supply chain that conform to GAP standards. The cafe chain will use third-party auditing to ensure compliance. Its new standards consist of 2024 targets that include:

• Using slower-growing broiler breeds recognized by GAP


• Providing more space for chickens by reducing stocking density to a maximum six pounds per square foot


• Offering improved environments which includes litter, lighting and enrichment


• Processing chickens more humanely with a multi-step controlled atmospheric processing system

“Au Bon Pain’s new policy will significantly reduce the suffering of countless chickens on factory farms,” Coman-Hidy said of the commitment. “As more restaurants commit to eliminate the worst abuses in their supply chains, we will build on that momentum and encourage these sweeping welfare reforms for every food company nationwide.”

This week General Mills also pledged to source only cage-free eggs for all of its global operations by 2025. It committed to work toward the cage-free goal for the U.S. and Canada back in 2015. 

Being such a large multinational company, General Mills is influential. As Coman-Hidy put it: “As one of the world’s leading food companies, General Mills’ announcement will hopefully influence other prominent global players to produce similar policies.”

Animal welfare groups play a big role in mobilizing consumer action against companies to urge them to adopt better standards. The Humane League launched two such campaigns as of late. The 88 Percent Campaign targeted what the NGO deems the worst abuses in factory farming against chickens raised for meat, which represent 88.7 percent of all farm animals in the U.S.

Part of the 88 Percent Campaign specifically targeted TGI Friday's and Au Pon Bain. The campaigns targeting both companies included Humane League staff members and members of its online platform, Fast Action Network, taking action through social media posts and direct emails.

The Humane League and other animal welfare groups spearheaded a similar campaign last year to free egg-laying hens from cages. The campaign, Open Wing Alliance, was introduced at the first Global Summit to End Cages in Warsaw, Poland. Seventeen OWA member organizations from 22 countries were present at the summit. Over 12,000 people watched the launch of the campaign, which targeted General Mills, on Facebook Live. And over 28,000 people signed a petition in under two weeks.

Image credit: Flickr/lostandcold

According to a recent report issued by the NGO Mighty Earth, Burger King’s opaque disclosures about its global supply chain are hiding deforestation across South America.

The company’s eight-sentence description of its corporate sustainability policy fails to inform its stakeholders about how its meat produced or how many of its ingredients are raised sustainably and responsibly, assert several NGOs. The result of this opaque supply chain, insists Mighty, is that Burger King has long turned a blind eye to its suppliers -- which have been linked to the destruction of forests and savannas in Bolivia’s Amazon and Brazil’s cerrado.

Mighty’s investigation comes a few months after it partnered with other environmental groups to protest the sourcing practices at several Burger King restaurants in the U.S.

Mighty says its evidence is based on data including satellite images, drones, on-the-ground field research at almost 30 locations, and extensive supply chain mapping.

The biggest culprit, in Mighty’s view, is soy production. (Like many livestock farms, Mighty says Burger King's suppliers feed their cattle, chickens and pigs a diet comprised partially of soy.) Between 2001 and 2010, Mighty estimated that soy and cattle together were responsible for the deforestation of an average of 4 million hectares a year across South America. And despite the success of the soy moratorium, launched a decade ago to halt the conversion of Amazonian forests into farmland for soy, farming and cattle interests continue to transform virgin lands across Bolivia and Brazil into soy plantations.

Last fall Brazil’s environment minister, José Sarney Filho, told a gathering of sustainability leaders that he supported extending the moratorium into Brazil’s cerrado. But despite the fact that half of these Brazilian savannas have been lost to agriculture, Burger King -- in addition to its major suppliers Bunge and Cargill -- have refused to extend that mechanism to these grasslands.

The result, according to Mighty’s investigation, is the destruction of natural habitat for some of South America’s most endangered animals. In addition, soy and cattle interests have been accused of land grabbing, human rights violations and even murder in South America. Indigenous communities have lost access to lands on which their families survived for generations, and are often subjected to indiscriminate pesticide exposure.

And the real tragedy is that while more virgin forests and grasslands are lost to monoculture soy plantations and cattle pastures, at least 200 million hectares of degraded forests elsewhere in South America could be developed instead of causing more deforestation, Mighty insists. The NGO's investigation says that Bunge alone is responsible for the destruction of 527,562 hectares between 2011 and 2015; and it linked Cargill to 130,000 hectares of deforested land over the same period.

Burger King did not reply to TriplePundit's repeated requests for a comment on Mighty’s accusations.

But the fast-food giant has long been in other NGOs’ crosshairs for its suppliers’ links to deforestation. Earlier this decade, Greenpeace took credit for Burger King’s decision to cancel contracts with Sinar Mas, a major Southeast Asian palm oil supplier that was accused of rampant deforestation across Indonesia. And last summer, the Union of Concerned Scientists called out Burger King’s parent company, Restaurant Brands International (RBI), for not matching its sustainability and deforestation plans with action.

Mighty -- along with one of its partners, the Rainforest Foundation of Norway -- is calling on Burger King and RBI (which also owns the Canadian doughnut chain Tim Horton’s) to take four significant steps:

1. Implement a stringent “no deforestation, no exploitation” policy


2. Publicly post all suppliers and disclose their progress on compliance with sustainability policies


3. Follow the lead of competitors such as McDonald’s, which supports an expanded soy moratorium


4. Work with governments and NGOs to implement zero-deforestation policies in regions that are at most environmental risk

Whether these companies will heed the call remains to be seen.

Image credit: Jim Wickens/Ecostorm via Mighty

A breathing space for discussions has been agreed to by Olam International, a $10bn (£8bn, €9.5bn) agri-business group with interests in coffee, rubber, almonds, cacao, peanuts and rice as well as palm oil, and the Washington DC-based environmental organisation Mighty.  The agreement was moderated by the World Resources Institute.

The company, headquartered in Singapore, will suspend forest clearance in Gabon for at least a year to allow for a multi-stakeholder approach to develop further specific criteria for responsible agricultural development in countries that have most of their land covered by forests.  

During the negotiations, Olam, which has been criticised for a lack of transparency, will disclose more information about its Asian third-party palm oil suppliers and will demand that they follow sourcing guidelines drawn up by the High Carbon Stock Approach, an international forest protection group run from Kuala Lumpur. Olam will also publish how it manages supply chain risks and will work on eliminating worker exploitation in its operations and among its suppliers. 

Mighty, for its part, will refrain from campaigns targeting Olam’s palm oil and rubber plantations during the year of discussions. The organization also said its representatives would work with NGOs and government officials in Gabon to push for more land conservation efforts and create sustainable development policies.

Many Asia-based companies have responded to the increased attention from NGOs, journalists and local authorities on their operations in Southeast Asia by looking to Africa as the next frontier for global palm oil production.