Search

The Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, was a watershed moment for the global garment industry. It shone a bright light on the often atrocious conditions in factories across the developing world. When it was found that the factory was supplying several fast fashion brands – including Benetton -- it began a movement to ensure better working conditions across the world, resulting in initiatives such as the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.

High fashion brands have, for the most part, avoided the spotlight. Logically, these labels – which charge a premium for high quality products – should not be making the same, cost-cutting mistakes that fast fashion brands do and did. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

In this piece we'll explore the sustainability commitments of several well-known high fashion brands, We'll see which ones have strong policies in place, and which ones are ignoring the basics of proper supply chain management. It is those companies, in the laggards section, that have the highest likelihood of having forced labor or modern slavery in their supply chain.

Leaders

These brands have made a strong commitment to transparency in their supply chains.

Kering

Luxury Society called Kering "a leader when it comes to conglomerate level corporate social responsibility in the luxury sector," pointing specifically at their ambitious five year social and environmental plan, which includes a section on the sourcing of raw materials. Kering's sustainability page is thorough, with progress updates, targets, and regular updates. They are also a member member of the United Nations Global Compact. Kering is the umbrella company for brands such as Gucci, Saint Laurent Paris, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta and Balenciaga.

Gucci

Gucci has several built-in advantages. In addition to being wholly owned by supportive parent Kering, the company goes above and beyond and still makes all its products in its home county, Italy, not having yet outsourced their production to developing countries to cut costs. They've also taken a leadership position in sustainability. Their website highlights their commitment to sustainability and worker wellbeing. They also perform audits every year for their suppliers and subcontractors. Gucci is also a member of the Responsible Jewellery Council and has met the organization's highest ethical, social and environmental standards.

Burberry

Burberry has an ethical trading policy that is quite comprehensive, and they are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative, "an alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs that promotes respect for workers' rights around the globe". In 2012, they pulled out of a factory in China after concerns about conditions there, showing that they are willing to take action when suppliers do not meet their standards.

In the middle

These brands have started to take steps towards greater transparency – but still have a long way to go.

Michael Kors

Michael Kors has disclosed their supply chain as required by the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act. They state that "due to the nature of our workforce and the locations of most of our employees, we believe that the risks of slavery and human trafficking in our own business are remote." They also have a policy on conflict minerals – the use of which can also be closely tied to modern slavery or child labor.

Armani

Armani has a Social Responsibility and Sustainability Policy, but it does not specifically mention supply chain management or worker's rights. Though they are a leader in zero discharge and water quality issues, it is unclear what Armani is currently doing to ensure that slavery and labor abuses are not in their supply chain.

LVMH (Louis Vitton, Christian Dior)

LVMH has a supplier Code of Conduct, but it is unclear how it is implemented and how the auditing process works for certain materials. There also does not seem to third party verification.

Coach

Coach has released a disclosure, as required by the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, however, the disclosure is a self-analysis and does not include any third party verification. Unlike some of its competitors, Coach has many facilities in countries with labor rights issues, including Vietnam, China, India, and the Philippines, and necessitating a greater need for transparency.

Laggards

These brands have not released adequate public information on their supply chains, are not members of a alliance and, as of publication, have not responded to TriplePundit's request for information.

Prada

Prada does not have any recent information on their website about either sustainability or supply chain management. Their last sustainability report dates from 2014. RandaBrand.com, a independent website that ranks consumer brands on sustainability and social responsibility, gave Prada a E, the lowest possible score, for not communicating anything concrete on, among other things, labor conditions in low-wage countries.

Dolce & Gabbana

Doce & Gabbana has a code of ethics on their website, but little information how it is implemented, nor if there is any third-party verification for these standards. RankaBrand also rated them a E. They are also not a member of any alliance or organization seeking to improve working conditions.

Industry-wide change

In the more than three years since the Rana Plaza disaster, there has been considerable progress in making the global garment industry safer. Still, we know for a fact that human trafficking, child labor, and modern slavery are rife in factories around the world. High fashion companies are taking small steps to address this challenge – but, so far, not nearly enough.

If these brands really want to maintain their reputation for quality and style, then they need to ensure consumers that their products are being sourced, produced, and sold ethically, with no risk of modern slavery in their supply chains. And, most importantly, they need to work together to ensure the entire industry remains high fashion, ethically.

Image credit: Unsplash

The 2016 Global Carbon Project’s annual analysis of carbon emissions showed that contributions from coal declined by 0.28 percent during the last year. While this is a hopeful statistic and part of a flattening trend prevalent for the last three years, it does not reflect predictions for coal use globally.

Even while country pledges from the 2015 Paris climate agreement move toward implementation, there remains doubt that climate change goals will be met. This doubt is fueled in part by the fact that coal contributes 41 percent of global carbon emissions and coal use is expected to grow for many years.

China, India and the U.S. account for the vast majority of coal use. According to the U.S. Energy Information Association’s (IEA) 2016 Global Outlook, world coal production will increase “by 1.2 billion tons from 2012 to 2040, with 0.7 billion tons (62 percent of the total increase) coming from India.”

The IEA predicts that China will remain the largest coal producer through 2040, “peaking at approximately 4.7 billion tons in 2025” before starting to decline. Production in Australia, Africa and Russia will also increase substantially, representing 24 percent of the world's total production increase. Coal production in the United States would be reduced 25 percent by 2040 if the U.S. Clean Power Plan clears legal challenges.

Why, in the midst of the global attack on climate change that has been underscored by the Paris agreement, will coal continue to contribute significantly to emissions even though it is the most critical fossil fuel to eliminate from the energy mix?

The pressure to use coal continues because of its role in producing the energy necessary for economic growth.

China’s approach to energy development reflects the economic importance of coal. According to the IEA: “Coal will remain the leading energy source in China for many years to come. Therefore, while seeking to limit coal consumption on one hand, the Chinese government has also focused on consolidating and modernizing the domestic coal mining industry, mitigating the environmental effects of coal mining, and improving the logistics of coal supply to ensure the steady operation and continued development of the country's coal sector and to improve the economic competitiveness of domestic coal relative to imports.”

Lack of water could stymie Chinese coal development

According to China Water Risk, an NGO dedicated to highlighting the risks water supply shortfalls bring to the economy, China needs to create an additional annual output of 1.2 trillion gigawatts of energy by 2040 to support its economic growth.

Seventy-four percent of China's energy mix comes from coal and natural gas. The country annually produces approximately 4 billion metric tons of coal. Water Risk addresses this issue because there it's doubtful China has the water resources to create these new sources of energy.

Power plants using coal require water for steam-drive turbines generators and for cooling, but the water needed to produce this coal might not be available. Half of China’s coal reserves are found in what is known as the Dry 11, thedriest of China’s 31 provinces. This is an area that, according to Wikipedia, is the hydrological equivalent of the Middle East.

Other countries plan to ramp up coal

Currently producing 600 million metric tons, India is the world’s third-largest coal producer, yet there is an imbalance between the supply of coal and the country’s demand for power. According to the IEA, this imbalance has “forced outages of coal-fired generating plants, lower plant utilization rates, and increased coal imports.” To address this shortage of coal, India intends to increase coal production from 600 million metric tons to 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020.

Japan is another country with plans to increase coal capacity. Because of the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant, Japan has eliminated nuclear energy from its portfolio and will replace that energy with coal plants. According to Carbon Brief, a website covering climate change and energy issues, Japan could burn 30 percent more coal over the next 15 years. "Japan currently has 52 new coal plants in the pipeline – enough to almost double its existing fleet,” Sophie Yeo of Carbon Brief wrote last year.

Germany has ambitious energy goals, planning to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and to eliminate nuclear energy by 2022.  However, Carbon Brief reports that Germany can’t eliminate coal and nuclear energy at the same time. As a result, German coal use has increased since 2009. According to Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, his country will not be shutting down coal plants as quickly as originally envisioned.  In a Nov. 16 story in the East African newspaper, Mr. Gabriel said coal "will on no account be switched off in the next decade, in my opinion not even in the one after that."

The East African story also reported that Australia gets two-thirds of its power from coal, the country’s second-biggest export. In 2014, former prime minister Tony Abbott said, "Coal is good for humanity and an essential part of our economic future."

Coal producers seek a role for advanced technologies

Promoting coal consumption is obviously the goal of the industry that produces it, and coal representatives have been active globally, including at the Marrakech climate conference. In a Nov. 18 Forbes story, World Coal Association CEO Benjamin Sporton said: “Twenty-two countries have submitted climate plans that include a role for advanced coal technologies. We are in Marrakech to talk about the role of that technology. It is misguided for people to talk about how to get rid of coal. We need to be part of the solution.”

The biggest wild card in the coal discussion is the United States. From Marrakech to the Washington Beltway, people are asking what President-elect Donald Trump will do in regard to climate change. The soon-to-be president has publicly denied the existence of climate change, vowed to pull out of the Paris agreement, said he will eliminate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, stated opposition to the Clean Power Plan, and appointed a leader of the climate-denier minority, Myron Ebell, to head the EPA transition efforts. Part of Mr. Trump’s proposals include a vow to make the U.S. energy independent through development of fossil fuels and putting coal workers back to work, a nod to encouraging more coal production and consumption.

China coal production to decline after 2025

These pronouncements come even as China boosts its coal production, but still pledges to cut back after reaching a peak in 2025 and to continue displacing coal energy with renewables and nuclear power.

Japan’s current relationship with coal is based on the Fukushima disaster and the resultant fear of nuclear energy, not on backing away from reducing emissions. As Carbon Brief reported, Japan proposed an emissions-reduction target of 26 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. This would be achieved by restarting nuclear generation, although Carbon Brief reports the country's emissions goal is considered unrealistic.

What will it mean to global emissions goals if the U.S. ramps up its coal production?

Since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the world waited for the U.S. to stand up and take leadership of the effort to battle climate change. The Obama administration finally took the reins and joined with China to take a global leadership role that resulted in the 2015 Paris agreement. It is ironic that the incoming administration plans to abandon the role of leading international climate efforts just when U.S. participation is most needed.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Alan Stark; 2) and 3) Global Carbon Project

The National Organic Standards Board voted unanimously last week to update its U.S. standards to ban ingredients derived from new genetic engineering techniques from certified organic products.

The vote served as a recommendation by the NOSB to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. The board says it will ensure ingredients that are derived from new GE techniques will not wind up in organic certified foods and beverages.

“The NOSB is clear that GMOs do not belong in organic,” Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, told TriplePundit. “In the absence of strong federal regulations on the labeling and commercialization of genetic engineering, the organic standard continues to provide consumers with a transparent and clear way to avoid GMOs in the food they eat.”

One of the new GE methods the board is concerned about is synthetic biology, which designs and constructs new organisms to either produce something they would not normally produce or to edit DNA to stop certain traits from being expressed, according to FOE. 

Some synthetic biology ingredients are ending up in food and consumer products without sufficient labeling, just as traditional GE ingredients do. GE ingredients in general lack adequate oversight, the group insists. And some are labeled as 'natural,' which is incredibly misleading to consumers. Although a few states passed mandatory GE labeling laws, the federal requirements are murky. Back in August, President Barack Obama signed a bill into law that preempts state GE labeling laws, virtually striking them down with what many call a lackluster federal labeling requirement. 

By contrast, 64 nations globally have far more stringent GE labeling laws, including the EU, Japan, Russia and China. The EU goes one step further and bans the cultivation of GE crops, with only minor exceptions, according to Just Label It.

What exists in the U.S. is a process that fast-tracks approval for new GE food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even rely on its experts to determine if a GE food is safe. It instead uses biotechnology companies to vouch that the GE food they created is “not materially different in any respect relevant to food safety.” The FDA accepts the claims of the companies that produce GE food and tells them they have a “continuing responsibility” to ensure the safety of the food.

The environmental problems synthetic biology crops might create

Some of the products now banned from organic foods include synthetic biology stevia, saffron, coconut and cacao. Small farmers in the Global South typically produce these items. And there is concern that synthetic biology forms of these crops could harm the farmers that grow the traditional versions.

A key concern is that GE competitors could make the current push to grab land from communities in the Global South worse, land that small-scale farmers rely on as the source of their food and livelihood. Synthetic organisms may also impact ecosystems in ways that are unpredictable and permanent. As FOE states on its website, “A synthetic organism could swap genes with naturally occurring organisms or out-compete them, potentially disrupting entire ecosystems as a new class of invasive species.”

Synthetic vanilla flavoring already exists and is produced by a company called Evolva. It has the potential to gain a large part of the global vanilla flavor market. That would be bad for small farmers who produce natural vanilla, say groups like FOE.

A GE yeast is used to create synthetic biology vanilla. Sugar is fed to the GE yeast. Expanding sugarcane plantations to meet the demand for sugar to produce the vanila could exacerbate and even accelerate the destruction that is occurring of savannah and rain forest ecosystems in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. There is also a potential for the land vanilla farmers rely on to be harmed if synthetic biology vanilla flavoring replaces the natural variety, advocacy groups say. 

Some companies already said they will not source synthetic biology vanilla flavor, including Ben and Jerry’s, Three Twins Ice Cream, Straus Family Creamery, Luna and Larry's Coconut Bliss, Nestlé, and General Mills. Some companies, such as Nutiva and Dr. Bronner’s, pledged to avoid all synthetic biology ingredients.

Synthetic biology ingredients can already be found in some cosmetics and household products. Synthetic biology squalane, for example, is often used in cosmetics. It is produced by Amyris Biotechnologies and used in an estimated 300 products, mostly undisclosed. Consumer product companies either currently using or planning to use synthetic biology ingredients include Ecover, Unilever and Procter and Gamble.

Image credit: Flickr/U.S. Department of Agriculture

She’s leaving office in six weeks to take her seat in the U.S. Senate. But California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been asked to launch an investigation into the state’s solar power industry.

Earlier this month, Washington, D.C.-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) urged Harris to launch an investigation into residential solar installation companies after mounting complaints.

CfA’s request comes a few months after the watchdog group Public Citizen complained that many solar system leases, including those written by SolarCity, often include forced arbitration clauses. Such stipulations make it impossible for consumers to take solar power providers to court in the event any contracts or laws are violated.

In addition to dodgy legalese, many solar companies indulge in tactics that in the very least are embarrassing and at most predatory, insists CfA.

The group said the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) received at least 125 consumer complaints from solar customers since 2012. The grievances, which include accusations against at least 30 different solar companies, were all over the map: poorly finished installations, promises of low utility rates that actually morphed into huge monthly price increases, and even harassing phone calls to consumers on the federal government’s “do not call” registry.

A grand total of 125 complaints may not sound like much in a state home to 40 million residents, but there is a catch: The CPUC does not have jurisdiction over solar power companies. If you have a complaint about your limo ride, your utility or a moving company, that agency must be on your radar. But according to CfA, complaints about residential solar installations must be channeled to the state attorney general's office.

"The complaints we reviewed are likely to be just a small subset of the actual number of complaints," a CfA spokesperson told TriplePundit in an email. "The Attorney General's Office -- which does have jurisdiction -- may have received many more. We don't know, though, because their complaints are confidential."

The largest offenders turned out to be SolarCity and Vivint Solar, according to the group. As of press time, neither company responded to TriplePundit's requests for comment.

The bottom line, claims CfA, is that too many solar installers have followed the path of other industries that became notorious for ripping off consumers. Tales of hyper-aggressive sales tactics, misrepresentations of the services provided, and preying on low-income and elderly consumers all risk leaving a black eye on an industry that has long promised to free citizens from dependence on fossil fuels while lowering their monthly utility bills. Sales representatives are also accused of telling customers they were affiliated with local utilities, which may have added an air of legitimacy to these sales calls but also violates state law.

In the end, many of these companies appear to have run afoul of California’s Unfair Competition Law, which aims to protect residents from fraud and other illegal business practices. CfA concluded that some shady characters within California’s solar power industry benefit from lax enforcement, and in turn asked the state attorney general’s office to investigate and decide whether these firms should be held accountable in court.

This is not an energy company-funded campaign attacking the solar industry. For CfA, a cleanup of California’s solar power industry is just another campaign that seeks to hold influential companies responsible for their conduct. In recent years, the nonprofit investigated mining and fossil fuel companies the organization says have been lobbying to rollback environmental regulations. And most recently, CfA filed a Freedom of Information Act request to review FBI files on Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump who is rumored to be in the running for a leading role in the president-elect’s administration.

Image credit: Matt Montagne/Flickr

Four years ago I attended the 20th annual BSR conference in New York, which convened just before Hurricane Sandy. The conference theme was “Fast Forward,” reflecting the need to accelerate progress in business when it comes to sustainability. Back then I quoted Aron Cramer, BSR president and CEO, who wrote: “As we reflect on the past 20 years, it seems that everything has changed, and nothing has changed.”

Four years later, I attended the 24th BSR conference earlier this month in New York. This time the theme was “Be Bold,” and just like four years ago it was followed by a hurricane, only this time it was not Sandy, but Trump. This year Cramer included in his opening remarks the following comment:

“It is time for us to redefine what we mean when we talk about sustainable business. We have to redefine our approach to meet our moment and not just retrofit yesterday’s world, some of the things that are fading away.”

I couldn’t agree more with Cramer in both instances.

At the same time, both hurricanes (Sandy and Trump) bring a sense of urgency and the need for business to create, deliver and capture value in ways that are fundamentally different.

Therefore, while the sessions I attended and watched this year reflected progress and important, even bold, steps, I found the progress lacking. While companies seem to be moving forward, the challenges we face advance much faster in the other direction. Hence eventually we find ourselves actually moving backward, not forward.

Given that this trend is probably not likely to change, i.e. the impact of VUCA challenges will continue to outpace business ability to respond within the current framework, it is perhaps time to rethink the sustainable business framework, or even business fundamentals in general.

Let me be clear: It’s not that the urgency was not evident in BSR, but it wasn’t the type of systematic investigation, where “executives and employees at all levels need to challenge everything, from processes to the way we innovate (openly, not in private) to business models to capitalism itself,” as Andrew Winston suggests in his book “The Big Pivot.” It was also not the type of exploration of structural alternatives that I saw a week or so later at the Platform Cooperativism conference, which focused on a new economic paradigm that rejects “wealth inequality, gender inequity, environmental degradation, and systemic racial injustice.”

BSR obviously can’t be Platform Cooperativism, but it doesn’t mean it can’t challenge its members with an agenda focusing on heretical questions and experiments.

Looking for inspiration, I was definitely inspired by some personal stories shared at the BSR conference. Take for example Mina Guli, the founder of Thirst. She decided to bring attention to the estimate that by 2030 demand for water will be 40 percent greater than supply by running 40 marathons across seven deserts on seven continents in seven weeks this year. Next year she plans to do it in six continents in six weeks.

Guli is an inspiration first because she took on a difficult physical challenge (she is the first person to complete such a feat) to spread the word on the issue of water scarcity. When we talk about bold actions, is there anything bolder than that? If any of the companies attending the conference would take on their own version of Guli’s “Seven Deserts Run” challenge, I’m positive we would be in a far better position. But then again, this is far more than being bold – this is about adopting a new mindset and being fully committed to making a difference.

Guli is also an inspiration because while she is the one taking the challenge, she puts the people already suffering from the water crisis at the center of her campaign, sharing the stories of people in Spain, Jordan Australia and the other places where she runs. In addition, she is exercising materiality, focusing not on the water coming out of your tap, but on the invisible water:  “95 percent of the water we use every day is invisible. It is hidden inside the things we wear, eat, use and consume every day,” she says.

“if your fear define your future it defeats your dreams. ... Too often we’re confronted by fears that we set by ourselves or by society. We’re afraid of standing up. We’re afraid of people tell us things are not possible. But the reality we have to remember, I have to remember, [is] that when people say things like this, it is a reflection of them, not me,” Guli said, giving everyone I hope a sense of where this new mindset stems from.

Last but not least, I’d like to mention the space where the conference took place. In his opening remarks, Cramer made the case that “we need to redefine the our agenda." He continued: "There’s a word that is not a complicated word; it’s not sustainability jargon; and my bet it doesn’t appear in many GRI reports: It’s the word fairness. More attention needs to be given to basic economic fairness. This is the foundation on which social cohesion rests and it’s in somewhat short supply right now, so we should put it higher on our agenda.”

Again, I couldn’t agree more. There’s only a slight problem – I believe it’s a bit difficult to have a real conversation about a new agenda focusing on economic fairness at the Grand Hyatt New York, where the conference took place. It’s a very nice hotel, and I’m sure it has many advantages. But one advantage it lacks is that it does not represent an agenda of economic fairness and equality. If anything, it represents the opposite, given that BSR attendees were offered $443 per night hotel rooms (after a group discount).

If BSR really wants to pursue a more progressive agenda, it needs to send a clear message by choosing a space representing this agenda, like a community college or a civic center. Otherwise, not only the ability of the participants to empathize with the people actually struggling with economic fairness issues remains limited, but also the effectiveness of message coming from BSR.

It goes again to the need to reimagine the future of business in ways we haven’t seen before, taking into account that the rules of the game have changed -- and so should the response. As John Erenfeld put it bluntly more than a decade ago: “The real business case for sustainability requires more radical, fundamental and difficult change than most are ready to consider, but anything less ignores the real problem and may, in fact, contribute to it.”

It is time for business to stop thinking in (sustainable) business-as-usual terms and start getting real about the urgency of the challenges we face and the type of unprecedented shift they require. Hopefully the next BSR conference will reflect it.

Image credit: Vincent Breton/BSR

You took a break from your non-GMO, free-range, gluten-free, organic and fair trade diet to spend Thanksgiving Day having awkward conversations with family members and, of course, eating foods you swore you would never consume again. And while you will never admit it, you enjoyed all that grub, until you woke up on Black Friday morning and felt the aftershock to your system. No problem, you think as you grab that $5 bottle of kombucha in your fridge.

Well, the next time you stock up on kombucha or other probiotic drinks, the chances are high they will be PepsiCo products.

Last week, the beverage and snack foods giant acquired the popular brand KeVita, an Oxnard, California-based company that bottles kombucha, probiotic and apple vinegar beverages. The terms of the deal were not disclosed, but PepsiCo claims KeVita will become a subsidiary and continue to operate independently out of Southern California.

The PepsiCo-KeVita transaction is another step in an ongoing journey for the world’s largest beverage and food manufacturers. Soft drinks are being hit particularly hard as millennials find trendy new beverage products and consumers become more concerned about sugar content. Earlier this year, Fortune was one of many publications to point out that sodas have declined in sales for 11 consecutive years.

The results leave soft drink companies with no choice but to diversify their holdings and rebrand themselves as “lifestyle” and “nutrition” companies. Hence Coca-Cola purchased brands such as Honest Tea, and PepsiCo hopped on the bandwagon with acquisitions such as Naked Juice.

It’s curious that a company that defended its use of ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup by preaching about science is now investing in a company pitching products with nutrition claims backed up by dodgy research.

Fans of kombucha touted a bevy of health benefits over the years, from its immunity-boosting powers to even helping people cope with the side effects of HIV/AIDS and cancer. Some even made claims about the drink being good for the libido and even causing hair regrowth. But at least one scientific study cast doubt on kombucha’s benefits versus its health risks; and in 2013, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics told National Public Radio that little evidence exists that supports the health claims of kombucha.

Any health benefits of kombucha, along with other acclaimed probiotics such as apple cider vinegar, come from the live bacteria that thrive in these products. More preliminary evidence suggests probiotics, as in the bacteria found in yogurt, offer a wide range of health benefits.

DIY kombucha is now becoing more popular, as making the 2,000-year-old drink requires a relatively simple process. One just needs to tend to a SCOBY (symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast), a glob of microorganisms that at times looks like a badly misshapen flan or a human brain. The problem, however, is that not everyone is skilled enough to grow such a beast in their kitchen. Using the wrong kind of container, such as glazed pottery, can leach toxins. And then there is the risk of the wrong type of bacteria thriving, which can cause health problems.

Hence the popularity of bottled kombucha drinks, which often are more palatable than what can be made at home; but they are often weaker than the home-brewed options, largely because they contain only trace amounts of alcohol. (Remember, this is a fermented brew, or in other words, booze.) You may not get as many of those “benefits” as you would from a homemade concoction, but since it was purchased at a supermarket, the odds are that it is much safer. And judging by the price point, these probiotic drinks are highly profitable.

As Americans continue to avoid sugary and artificially-sweetened drinks, companies like PepsiCo have no choice but to purchase brands such as KeVita if they want to stay viable in the long run. So look out for more of the same.

Image credit: Kevita

Some of the speakers at the E2Tech Expo 2016 didn't paint a pretty picture for the future of Maine. We have the most energy-intensive economy and are among the most oil-dependent states in the nation. In fact, two-thirds of Maine homes are heated with fuel oil. As a highly rural state in a cold climate, Mainers are disproportionately dependent on heating systems and the automobile. This heavy reliance on oil makes Maine vulnerable to supply shortages, price spikes and transportation issues.

Most of the fuels supplied to Maine arrive by rail or import terminals. Such modes of transportation are often slower or less reliable during the winter months when the supply is most needed, causing supply and price instabilities. For example, propane prices peaked in February 2014 as it often does at the end of the winter, leaving very high energy bills in its wake.

As heat-pump technology advances, it becomes far more promising for colder climates like Maine. Presenters at E2Tech discussed additional approaches, although it didn't seem as if a there was a clear path forward. James LaBrecque, technical advisor on energy to Gov. Paul LePage, suggested common-sense, energy-efficiency initiatives and electrifying home heating.

But he showed no support for wind or solar energy advancement and seemed more focused on short-term prices than externalized costs or national interest. In fact, LePage vetoed a solar bill earlier this year with bipartisan support. Efficiency Maine used to offer rebates for residential solar energy installations but the state law that authorized and funded those rebates was repealed. They are still able to give rebates for heat pumps.

Fresh ideas

David Markley, co-founder of Surge Hydro, is out to leverage existing dams to create a more sustainable power grid with fewer transmission losses. He says more than 90 percent of all U.S. dams do not produce electricity, representing a missed opportunity to generate clean power. Expanding sources of renewable energy would also help with rising demand that will likely be fueled by vehicle electrification and electric home heating.

Tony Wood, CEO of F.E. Wood Natural Energy, comes from a family with a long history in wood products and sees immense potential in wood pellets for home heating. Given the forest resources in Maine, a solution that includes efficient use of biomass is logical, Wood sees great opportunities for growth in the wood products industry because wood pellets could provide a long-term demand for low-grade fibers.

Wood products can also help homes become more efficient. Concerned by indoor air-quality issues, lack of fire protection and resulting waste, Nadir Yildirim, president of Revolution Research, developed a different home insulation solution: a foam-like product composed of wood fiber. I especially applaud this effort because some rigid foam insulations contain extremely potent greenhouse gases. Yildirim's R&D research company is now the recipient of federal grants.

“Our big value proposition is being eco-friendly with the same thermal properties as compared to others,” Yildirim said. The company's biggest challenge is the ability to compete on cost, as the apparent benefits are significant.

Speaking on wind energy, Christopher Allen, research engineer at UMaine Advanced Structures and Composites Center, is exploring ways to make offshore wind energy production competitive. He said that the average Maine family spends $10,000 on energy annually, with $4,000 on home heating, $1,000 on electricity, and $5,000 for gasoline. These sobering numbers highlight the jolt the economy would face if oil prices rise, especially given that Maine is such a rural state.

Allen highlighted how Maine residents and businesses spend $7.5 billion annually, or 15 percent of state GDP, on energy, with the majority of the dollars leaving the state. Allen spoke of how wind energy can create local jobs and (electric) heat pumps can heat homes without the use of oil.

Indeed the energy landscape of Maine is concerning, both economically and environmentally. Although many talented people are seeking solutions, the task of weaning Maine off oil is a major undertaking.

Submitted by Dr. Donato Calace

Corporate responsibility (or its sister concepts such as sustainability, corporate citizenship, and the like) may have won “the battle of ideas”, being awarded with the status of its own in business schools and having dedicated departments in the world largest companies, it still remains a tucked away exotic island compared to well established continents of other management disciplines, such as strategy or marketing.

Despite the explosion of the field in the last 20 years, we know very little about the exotic flora and fauna that populates these departments. Who are these CR professionals? How do they work together? How do they differ from other business professionals? 

My colleague from Cass Business School, Szilvia Mosonyi, is writing a roadmap to this emerging occupation of CR professionals. She presented her preliminary results based on interviews with 40+ CR in-house professionals and consultants in a report available here. In detail, Szilvia observed the dynamics of the client-consultant relationship, pointing out similarities and peculiarities that characterise the CR field.

Having spent my 3 year doctoral programme studying CR and sustainability, and being an ESG Specialist for eRevalue today, Szilvia’s research really resonated with my professional identity, and gave me food for thought on how to be a better CR expert.

One of the key takeaways of the research, is that experts working in the field of CR perceive their professional relationships as distinctive compared to other management disciplines (e.g. strategy, IT, marketing).

In particular, the distinctiveness is articulated in three different aspects:

1. The field is ambiguous, niche, and evolving.  It is multidisciplinary and often requires a combination of innovative thinking and comprehensive technical knowledge.
2. The projects are more collaborative and outcomes are often intangible, which results in a hard to prove business case.
3. Individuals are passionate, value-driven, and strongly motivated by the purpose to make a positive impact in the world.

Such sense of distinctiveness has important consequences in terms of relationship factors that drive success, pose threats, or generate tensions. Indeed, in a field where most of the time “there are no manuals, templates, or frameworks to follow, and there is uncertainty regarding initiatives and solutions”,  honesty and interpersonal qualities are key factors of success. In fact, being a successful CR professional requires connecting people rather than organizations.

The main aim of CR professionals lies in changing mindsets within the organizations, and that requires constant commitment combining technical, interpersonal, and, last but not least, selling skills. The challenge is to make projects economically viable, from both consultant and client perspectives. This implies continuous tension to provide sound business case to budget holders, as well as setting realistic expectations on what can be achieved within the time and resource constraints of the project. Not by chance, the main threat factors in the field are indicated as miscommunication of expectations, time, stereotyped ideas of what CR is and what it entails, quality of delivery, and pricing.

Based on her analysis, Szilvia proposes 7 key actions enabling a successful client-consultant relationship:

1. Invest time to understand how the other side works,
2. Recognise that you also work for a common goal and stay authentic,
3. Be clear about the values you wish to gain when working with your clients and consultants,
4. Make your goals more explicit, set clear expectations, and check if they are understood properly,
5. Don’t be a ‘Yesman’. Be honest about your challenges, but also challenge each other so you can achieve more together,
6. Have those difficult conversations as soon as possible,
7. Be open about your preferred style of working in the beginning of the project. 

Finally, the report presents an overlook of the emerging trends that are progressively changing the CR domain.The mindset towards CR has changed and is still evolving. Whereas 10 years ago the focus was on compliance and reporting, today integration in core functions of business and alignment with the brand is key. Integration involves strategy, implying that CR is getting on the table of the higher level of management, especially the Board. Technology (e.g. big data analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence), social media, and new services are rapidly changing the approach of CR professionals.Finally, growing sophistication of the field is leading consultants and in-house professionals to often swing their roles, creating a sort of ‘permeable boundaries’ between the two worlds.

If you would like to provide comments or have a chat about the report, please do not hesitate to contact Szilvia here. She is also open to further research opportunities in the area. 

As much as 40 percent of the food produced in the U.S. goes to waste. The reasons are all over the map: supply chain inefficiencies, consumers’ insistence that food look perfect, and local regulations that discourage food from being donated to those who need it. One factor, however, is the confusion that results from the tangled web of food date labels across the country. Date labels on boxes and cartons -- such as 'best by,' 'use by' and 'sell by' -- are often misunderstood, resulting in perfectly edible food being tossed out.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), reducing food losses by only 15 percent would be enough to feed the 25 million Americans who lack secure access to food. A rethink is needed on food date labels, because when Americans toss food due to the misunderstanding of a food label, they are not only filling up local landfills, but they are also throwing money away while some of their neighbors go hungry.

The good news, however, is that both government and business have become more proactive when it comes to food date labeling. Legislation mandating more standardized food labels was introduced in Congress, while more companies are finding ways to communicate the differences between food safety and quality.

The problem is that food companies use a myriad of terms to describe the time at which food reaches its peak quality. Many consumers, however, assume those dates mean that food has gone bad. Date stamps with terms like 'best by,' 'use by,' 'best before,' 'sell by' and even the absurd 'for wholesome great taste, serve before date stamped below' are driven more by marketing than food science. That box of crackers in the pantry and carton of yogurt in the fridge both have plenty of time to be consumed; but the level of texture of taste may not be what it was when it was first placed store shelves, hence the erroneous dates.

Food companies often err on the side of caution when it comes to quality dating, because no manufacturer wants to risk losing a customer by having them indulge in one of their products after it had long sat on a shelf – only to find that the taste and texture were just not quite there.

The Obama administration raised awareness about this challenge a year ago. Then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency announced the country’s first nationwide food waste reduction goal. This directive calls for a multi-stakeholder effort to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030. In recent years, the USDA launched other programs that seek to educate consumers and farmers about tactics that can reduce food waste from farm to fork.

But in order for bolder action to occur, nationwide standards would be a help. For now, federal laws covering food date labeling are nonexistent. Currently, there is only a haphazard system of state laws and industry standards that clearly are not working.

Bills have been proposed on Capitol Hill that aim to solve this problem. The Food Date Labeling Act of 2016, for example, aims to have two dates with standard terms stamped on all food products. A quality date would give food manufacturers the discretion to suggest a time at which the quality of a product starts to decline. A safety date makes it clear when the consumption of such food would pose a health risk.

Supporters of the bill say this will help reduce confusion and cut the amount of food that ends in landfills. For now, however, the bill has languished in Congress as events such as this year’s presidential election posed a distraction.

Nevertheless, the fact that legislation has been introduced on the House floor is an enormous step forward. “A year ago, I would have said that we are banging our heads against the wall," said Emily Broad Leib, assistant clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School and deputy director of the school’s Center of Health Law and Policy Innovation.

Leib was the lead author of a 2013 study, for which Harvard’s Food Law and Policy Clinic partnered with the NRDC in order to make the case that the patchwork of date labeling standards across the U.S. is a huge contributor to the country’s food waste problem. And while she told TriplePundit that much work lies ahead, both governments and companies have made huge strides in how they label food so less of it ends up in the dumpster.

Take Walmart, America’s largest grocer. The joint Harvard-NRDC report caught the company’s attention shortly after its release. Executives reviewed the company’s private-label products and found at least 47 different labeling terms used to describe the date at which they reached their peak quality or present health risks. The company now requires the suppliers of its Great Value product line to use 'best if used by' on all non-perishable items. Suppliers had until the end of July to make the switch if they wanted their products to remain on Walmart’s shelves.

Meanwhile, more nonprofits and industry trade groups are joining the quest to streamline food date labeling so customers have more clarity. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Institute of Food Technologists were among the organizations that worked with Walmart to implement its new food-labeling policy.

So, why not launch a massive public service announcement campaign to get the word out? After all, any standardization of food date labels would not be enough to eliminate food waste drastically. One would think that a change in date labeling and an education campaign could together reduce food waste and a spark a vast change in habits. But Dana Gunders, a senior scientist at the NRDC who wrote a book that advises consumers on how to halt food waste, insists a nationwide standard needs to come first.

“Yes, a robust consumer education campaign would be a start,” Gunders told 3p. “But we can’t do that at the moment because there is still too much confusion over what those phrases mean. To different food manufacturers, these date labels usually mean different things.”

In the meantime, Gunders suggests that consumers take small steps in order make a big difference. For one thing, she recommends that grocery shoppers exercise more restraint when they wander down supermarket aisles, and become more realistic about when they are going to eat what they purchase. “When you’re buying food, know that you’re making a commitment to it,” she said.

Next, the freezer is often a forgotten tool when it comes to reducing food waste. Just about any food can be frozen, including milk, bread and cheese. And to those consumers who have a hard time resisting the urge to toss food out once that date on the container arrives, Gunders insists that they take a closer look at the food in question. If it has been only a couple days, just try it, she advised. If it looks and smells fine, it probably is fine.

Much work lies ahead if society is going to tackle the mounting problem of food waste. A federal law would help make labels more streamlined, but that may not occur for a long time. In the meantime, tools such as the FMI’s FoodKeeper and the USDA’s Kitchen Companion offer lessons on how the question of food quality and safety is not determined by the length of time, but how food is stored. Such resources can help consumers not only reduce what they send to landfill, but also help them save money in the long run.

Image credit: Mark Turnauckas/Flickr