Search

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you an easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

Earlier this week, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) and the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) released an open letter to Congressional leadership urging them not to hold a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the November elections. Together, the groups represent over 250,000 American businesses, primarily small- and medium-sized companies.

If anything, trade deals are supposed to be good for business. So, why do the CPA and ASBC have beef with a lame duck TPP? The letter sums it up nicely:

"American voters’ trust in national leaders has been ebbing. Both major party presidential candidates oppose the TPP. A lame duck session vote on the TPP would further erode citizen’s trust in government. Legislators who have been defeated or are retiring would vote, but are no longer accountable to voters.

"President Obama seeks a legacy, but that legacy is not supported by either of his potential successors. A President Clinton or a President Trump deserves the opportunity to re-examine trade policy with a new analysis to determine what works and what does not."

The groups pointed to a May study from the U.S. International Trade Commission, which analyzes the deal's likely impact on the U.S. We took a gander at the same report through the lens of the triple bottom line.

For starters, what is the TPP?

If you're playing catch-up, here's the gist. The TPP is a trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries, mostly from the Pacific Rim region: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Negotiations on the deal stretched over seven years before it was signed in Auckland, New Zealand, on Feb. 4 of this year. It has yet to enter into force, hence the back-and-forth about a lame duck vote here in the U.S.

The White House is all about the deal. "With the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class," the administration wrote on its TPP webpage. "Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void."

But the deal was controversial from the start. Critics pointed to the fact that negotiations were closed to the public, but open to select business interests. Adding to the lack of transparency, the full text of the agreement was not released to the public until last year. Public resources like Read the TPP and a searchable version from WikiLeaks quickly followed.

While national security is a common argument in defense of the deal (i.e., let's do this before China can), the CPA and ASBC aren't buying it: "We are not persuaded by the national security argument in favor of the TPP," the groups said simply, adding that none of the 30 chapters in the International Trade Commission report reference national security.

Potential 3BL implications of the TPP in the U.S.

A rise in the U.S. trade deficit: In its study, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) noted "the effects of [free trade agreements] on the U.S. trade deficit are ... widely debated." But the group did come to a conclusion on how the TPP may affect U.S. exports and imports: "The aggregate trade balance for the United States would decline by $21.7 billion by 2032" (page 94, for those following along). The CPA and ASBC noted this figure as further evidence that the TPP has "no economic benefit for the U.S."

Dodgy estimates on real income and GDP: The nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute had some strong words for the ITC report the day after its release. On the above figure, the group noted: "All else equal, this rise in the trade deficit would put downward pressure on U.S. GDP."

"Nonetheless, the report concludes that over the next 16 years, the agreement will increase U.S. national income by $57.3 billion, 0.23 percent. This GDP gain stems largely from the ITC’s adoption of the standard full-employment assumption in modeling the TPP’s effects. There may have once been a time where such an assumption was warranted, but it seems highly inappropriate to apply to an economy that has been operating beneath full employment for at least 8 years and counting." The CPA and ASBC also pointed to this faulty full-employment assumption, insisting "U.S. annual real income growth and GDP growth will be nearly zero."

A decline in U.S. manufacturing:  "Our current poor manufacturing trade performance will worsen by $24 billion per year, and manufacturing output and employment will shrink," the CPA and ASBC insisted in their letter. "All manufacturing sectors studied by the Commission will decline. None will improve."

The Economic Policy Institute forecast equally grim results, saying: "The ITC study predicts that most of the gains from the TPP will be concentrated in agriculture and service industries, while manufacturing, natural resources and energy will see growing trade deficits ... As a result, output in manufacturing, natural resources and energy is projected to fall 0.1 percent, and employment will fall by 0.2 percent."

A widening wage gap: In its report, the ITC estimates the TPP would "increase employment in the United States by about 128,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and increase the real wage rate by about 0.19 percent" (page 90). The Obama administration also insists the TPP would strengthen the U.S. middle class. But critics aren't sold.

"These results fly in the face of both the rising gap between the wages of college and non-college educated workers, and the ITC’s own claim that the TPP will reduce output and employment (Table 2.3) in high-wage manufacturing industries, while increasing output in low-wage agriculture (0.5 percent) and service sectors (0.1 percent, despite a growing trade deficit)," the Economic Policy Institute determined in its analysis. (For those of you looking for that table in the ITC report, it can be found on page 73.)

The CPA and ASBC agreed, saying in their letter: "Income inequality will worsen as U.S. workers are competing directly with foreign workers being paid a fraction of our wages. The 70 percent of U.S. workers who do not have a college degree will suffer the most wage deterioration. Thus, the middle class will further erode."

Erosion of labor and environmental standards: In their letter, CPA and ASBC say labor and environmental standards in the TPP are "insufficient because they are not subject to direct enforcement, in stark contrast to investor rights." In January, 3p's RP Siegel noted another factor that may erode labor and environmental standards -- the so-called 'dispute settlement' provision, outlined in chapter 28 of the text (click here for a user-friendly version on Medium).

The provision calls for “the establishment [of] a dispute settlement panel tasked with determining whether a party has failed to comply with its obligations under the Agreement.” The panels will consist of “three objective international trade and subject matter experts,” appointed by the disputing parties. The dispute process further allows for “trade retaliation.”

Siegel drew a comparison to TransCanada's suit against the U.S. government over its rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, which relied on the dispute mechanism in NAFTA. TransCanada sought $15 billion in damages under the retaliation provision, saying U.S. environmental regulations hurt its business.

Would the TPP mean more of the same? It's tough to tell for certain, but the TPP was modeled after NAFTA -- an agreement critics say continues to threaten labor and environmental regulations and American sovereignty. The CPA and ASBC said simply: "Lower environmental standards in the TPP harm U.S. businesses that internalize environment costs but face foreign competitors that are allowed to externalize those same costs."

Increased exports of natural gas: The ITC study carries disturbing realities about the future of American natural gas exports under the agreement. "Natural gas, traded either via pipeline (in its natural state) or as a liquid (LNG) for movement in tankers, currently requires an export license approved by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is provided if the license is in the 'public interest,'" the study reads. "If the United States has a [free trade agreement] with the export destination, the application is automatically deemed consistent with the 'public interest'” (pages 222-223).

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club warned that such a change in licensing would "open the floodgates" for fracking in the U.S. And as such groups continue to insist the majority of global fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if we are to avoid the most significant impacts of climate change, the effect of free natural gas trade become even more ominous.

The bottom line

These are just a few of the factors that could influence America's future under the TPP from a 3BL perspective. We encourage readers to continue research on their own, utilizing resources like Read the TPP and the Economic Policy Institute's analysis of the ITC study. Once you've decided on your stance on the agreement, call your representatives to make your voice heard.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/SumofUs; 2) Official White House photo via nznationalparty on Flickr (press and personal use only); 3) Flickr/AFGE

A few years ago, Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe made a statement that alarmed human right activists. He suggested there should be a price for water.

"Personally I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value," Braebeck-Letmathe said in a video that later went viral, "so that we're all aware it has its price." At the time, he was attempting to frame two sides of a divisive argument about water as a human right. "And then one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to the water."

Brabeck-Letmathe was forced more than once to clarify his position regarding the 2010 United Nations declaration that access to water is a human right. But, Nestlé's chairman said it's "not a free good."

"People using the water piped into their home to irrigate their lawn, or wash their car, should bear the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply it," he explained in blog post a few years later.

Well, the Council of Canadians, a nonprofit social action organization based in Ottawa, is calling Nestlé on those words. In September, after Nestlé outbid a small town in its access to drinking water, the Council declared war against the water bottling company.

In a strongly worded petition, it called on consumers to boycott Nestlé. "This summer, many parts of southern Ontario faced drought conditions." In addition to purchasing the water rights the township of Wellington Centre said it would need to survive Ontario's current drought, the bottling company was also accused of endangering the city of Guelph, Ontario, which relies on groundwater for its drinking source.

"Yet Nestlé, a giant bottled water corporation, continues to pump more than 4 million liters of groundwater every day from an aquifer near Guelph," the Council states.

But it isn't just the fact that Nestlé continues to draw large volumes of water during drought conditions. It's the price the company pays that has many Canadians up in arms, as well. According to the Council, Nestlé pays less than $4 per 1 million liters, what comes out to less than $15 a day. Once it's bottled and marketed, the liter bottle can be sold for more than 10 times that price in Canada.

Nestlé's access to ground water resources is becoming a controversial issue in many parts of Canada. Last year, while wildfires raged in parts of British Columbia, protesters launched their own call for a review of commercial water-taking policies. At $2.25 per million liters, British Columbia's water access fee is even lower than Ontario's, making it almost "free" for companies that see a profit in bottling and selling Canada's water.

"The issue isn't just bottled water; it's that we allow companies to drain our water table for what amounts to free," wrote Joshua Ostroff, senior editor of Huffington Post Canada. From sodas to beer, Ostroff says manufacturers have had virtually unlimited access to Canada's aquifers, without reasonably paying for its resources. "It's time to disrupt the entire beverage market's business model, which is to extract an ingredient for basically free and sell it for an absurd amount."

With pressure mounting from environmental and human rights organizations, BC and Ontario began reviewing the pricing and permitting steps for commercial water taking. It's too early to tell whether either province will change its policies regarding Nestlé's commercial access -- or whether they feasibly can. Raising prices for water access or placing a cap on commercial extraction could be problematic for cities and areas like Guelph that also benefit financially from the drink manufacturer's local water processing plant.

Still, the lingering problem for Nestlé may be the way environmentalists and human rights organizations are interpreting its stance on water and human rights. No matter how many different ways the company phrases its support of the U.N. resolution, it has yet to convince many listeners that it fully supports water as a human right. Unfortunately for Nestlé, its recent outbidding of a town's drinking water source is likely to make that claim all the harder for some Canadians to hear.

Image credit: Flickr/Wilson Hui

The U.S. has its sights set on a "deep decarbonization" goal for the national economy, and it looks like hydrogen will play a key role in getting there. That may seem like a bit of an oxymoron if the hydrogen comes from conventional fossil sources.

However, wind and solar power are coming into play. A new round of $30 million in Energy Department funding indicates the U.S. is serious about getting on track for a sustainable hydrogen economy based on renewable energy.

$30 million more for the hydrogen economy

For those of you new to the topic, fuel cells produce electricity by combining hydrogen with oxygen. Fuel cells could replace batteries as the go-to mode of power for the emerging zero-emissions electric vehicle market. They potentially offer longer range at a lower cost, but there are a number of major obstacles to hurdle before fuel cell technology catches up to the current crop of battery EVs.

The $30 million in new funding will go to ramp up the Energy Department's existing Energy Materials Network.

The network was launched to support the domestic hydrogen and fuel cell industries with foundational research resources at the agency's national laboratories. The areas of research include renewable hydrogen and advanced materials for less expensive, more efficienct fuel cells.

The programs include the Electrocatalysis Consortium. This group is tackling one major obstacle, which is the cost of the catalyst needed to generate electricity in a fuel cell. Platinum is now the go-to catalyst but that means high cost, price volatility and supply issues. The hunt is on for low-cost, high-efficiency catalysts made from abundant materials.

Another group, dubbed the HydroGEN Consortium, is tasked with scaling up technologies to produce hydrogen from water, using renewable energy.

The Hydrogen Materials—Advanced Research Consortium is the third group in the new round of funding. This group is working on key issues for hydrogen in the mobility sector. One of those is how to provide for the safe storage of hydrogen on board a vehicle. The current method of choice is in a pressurized tank, and the group is looking at the potential for solid-state storage materials that act more like sponges.

The hydrogen economy is booming

Hydrogen is an abundant fuel, but its relatively low energy density kept it in the shadows. That is beginning to change now that the technology is catching up.

According to the Energy Department, the global market is booming:

"... Hydrogen and fuel cells continue to grow at an unprecedented rate, with more than 60,000 fuel cells, totaling roughly 300 megawatts (MW), shipped worldwide in 2015. The number of MW shipped grew by more than 65 percent compared to 2014. 2015 also saw the world’s first fuel cell vehicles for sale."

Developments on the fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) scene include Honda's Clarity. Earlier this week, Honda announced it will have a five-passenger edition of its Clarity FCEV on the road in California before the end of the year.

In case you're wondering why the vehicle will only be available in California, that's because you can find hydrogen fueling stations there thanks to a statewide initiative that includes Honda and other stakeholders. Elsewhere in the nation, the hydrogen network has yet to ramp up.

Honda notes that the Clarity has a range of about 300 miles or more, and it can refuel in five minutes or less. That compares favorably with the numbers for battery EVs and conventional gas-powered vehicles.

Another fuel cell early adopter is Toyota, which introduced the Mirai last year. Toyota has also launched an ambitious initiative in two Japanese cities that deploys wind energy to power the local economy.

GM entered the FCEV market in partnership with the U.S. Army. The company recently unveiled a fuel cell version of its Chevrolet Colorado, the Colorado ZH2. Here's a snippet from the press release detailing why the Army is so interested in hydrogen-powered mobility:

• Near-silent operation enabling silent watch capability


• Reduced acoustic and thermal signatures


• High wheel torque at all speeds via electric drive


• Low fuel consumption across operating range


• Water by-product for field uses

Fuel cell vehicles can also be hooked up to microgrids and provide power for stationary operations.

Beyond passenger cars

Aside from serving the motoring public, fuel cells are finding their way into the shipping and logistics field. The zero-emission angle is important for warehouse and seaport operations, and the quick refueling dovetails with the need for tight scheduling.

Fuel cells are also working their way into mass transit. One recent example is Ohio's Stark Area Regional Transit Authority, which just sent the first of its new fuel cell bus fleet on the road.

Another example is mobility company Alstom, which just introduced a fuel cell version of its popular diesel-powered urban passenger train in Europe.

Image (screenshot): via U.S. Department of Energy.

The global beef industry confronts greater challenges as environmental groups call out the sector for what they say are its negative impacts on the planet, communities and climate change. While the evidence suggests beef consumption in the U.S. and Canada may have increased last year after 40 years of decline, it continues to decline in other developed countries.

Environmental and health concerns explain part of this long-term decrease. Earlier this year, the Netherlands‘ health authority recommended that citizens reduce meat consumption to less than 500 grams (17.6 ounces) a week. And calls for a tax on red meat echoed across Denmark. Then there are the human rights issues, as in Canada, where the beef industry in Alberta says it is dependent on foreign workers to perform jobs in meatpacking plants that residents do not want.

Nevertheless, there are opportunities for the beef industry, starting with the resurgence in the popularity of the artisan, artistic and creative burger joints that have spread like wildfire across North America and overseas. And while the very notion of putting “health” and “beef” in the same sentence, this meat arguably does have its share of health benefits.

David Hughes, a professor at Imperial College in London, told an audience at this week’s Global Conference for Sustainable Beef in Banff, Alberta, that the industry indeed has opportunities. But for the beef industry to gain the trust of consumers and to thrive, it must understand, “It’s about value and it’s about values.”

In other words, the beef industry must demonstrate that it can be a good buy for consumers, and not even try to compete with cheaper forms of protein, such as chicken or freshwater fish like tilapia, catfish or basa, on price. Yet beef companies also must prove they have values, such as a positive social impact, animal welfare and a good story – as in that local fifth-generation rancher raising cattle. And Dr. Hughes also made it clear that in a world where consumers want the beef they buy to be responsibly raised, companies cannot expect to develop such meat products and expect a premium. “If you’re not ‘green,’ there’s a serious discount,” he said during his keynote talk on Wednesday morning, “but if you’re not, there’s a penalty.”

On those points, beef industries across the world, which are feeling the social, environmental and economic pressure of becoming more sustainable and responsible, should take notes from some recent progress and challenges as reported by the Canadian beef industry.

According to a new report issued by the Canadian Roundtable For Sustainable Beef (CRSB), a two-year study has shown where the beef industry has made progress, and offers suggestions as to how it can improve.

On the environmental front, the CRSB claims it has a total greenhouse gas emissions footprint of approximately 25.1 pounds per pound of beef. Most of those emissions come at the farming stage, which account for almost 75 percent of that footprint. That is slightly higher than the beef industry in the U.S., which has one of the world’s more efficient beef industries (where the per-pound GHG footprint ranges anywhere from 10 pounds to 22 pounds, depending on the source cited) due to the concentration of the industry and advancements in cattle feed, reproductive technology and reduced time for animals to reach their final weight.

On water, Canadian beef producers could be setting the standard of water efficiency at approximately 136 gallons of water needed per pound of beef. Contrast that with the industry south of the border, where American beef producers at a most conservative rate are using somewhere around 317 gallons per pound.

Improved efficiencies across the industry’s value chain can also mitigate the beef industry’s overall environmental impact. For example, 19 percent of all beef processed in Canada is wasted due to poor trimming procedures at packing plants, spoilage and the tossing away of expired meat. Reducing that waste by 50 percent could reduce carbon emissions per pound of beef by an additional 6.5 pounds – as well as conserving an additional 16 gallons of water needed to process that same amount of beef.

The study, which was led by Deloitte and Canfax Research Services of Calgary, is an important step by the beef industry as it offers a frank assessment of where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie. It is easy to get lost in the weeds of the report and challenge the figures related to carbon emissions, water consumption and safety incidents. But the real value of this report is that it offers a ideas for a tool that beef industry groups in other countries can use to assess how they can improve both their performance, as well as the level of transparency that is offered to stakeholders.

Image credit: Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

By Daphne Stanford

For those in human resources who want to help correct societal imbalance on a palpable level, greater attention to corporate social responsibility and a diversity-minded hiring policy is a good start.  Specifically, the need to reform what is considered positive and ideal behavior — as opposed to merely aiming for what is acceptable — in our communities, our places of work and our day-to-day lives will necessitate a multi-pronged approach.  The process may feel overwhelming at first.  However, that’s where our responsibility in making concrete changes to workplace policies and procedures comes into play.

Finding purpose in the business world is no easy feat, but it’s becoming more and more feasible.  This is true in part because of the priorities of millennials, Generation Y and even Generation X: They’ve shifted quite notably to the left.  Although many workers from younger generations value CSR, these values are trickling over into older generations, as well.  What this means for proponents of CSR and progressive values like green technology, more inclusive hiring policies, and better gender equity policies like fair family leave and equal pay for equal work is that there is a greater number of socially responsible companies.  This translates, of course, to more and better options for job-seekers hoping to find a better match between their values and their place of work.

In Forbes article published at the start of the year, Susan McPherson of McPherson Strategies predicted five CSR trends would take off in 2016. And one of them was social justice — also at the forefront of many people’s minds in the wake of the recent spates of police-related violence involving African-American men.  In addition to a move toward more cultural and ethnic diversity, there are gender and sexuality-neutral policies conscious and inclusive of LGBTQIA individuals.

We can each start by examining how we interact with colleagues on a daily basis, both in the ‘real world’ and online, via forums like Slack Chat and email.  Corporate social responsibility is two-pronged: there are the broader policies implemented by the company designed specifically to benefit society and the communities around it; and the second part concerns internal HR policies affecting social dynamics within the company itself—that is, the interactions between departments, as well as within them.

The result of this increased awareness is a growing sense that it’s not enough for a company to focus on profit-making or a robust stock portfolio, anymore.  Rather, companies should strive toward a greater sense of purpose resembling the values of many not-for-profit organizations.  These values include not only an awareness of sustainability, transparency, and collaboration, but also a larger mission of ethical business practices such as safe and humane working conditions for the growers or assembly workers who source product materials, a fair and living wage for all employees, and an overall sense that the company helps improve people’s lives—both the lives of their customers and the lives of those who work for them.

Millennials, in particular, are known for having a strong sense of social ethics.  According to Intuit, “Nearly half believe the government is failing when it comes to issues such as employment, resource scarcity and income inequality.”  In addition, millennials have been shown to be technologically savvy, as well as highly mobile and ambitious.  Because of this attraction to a flexible work schedule that allows them to work from anywhere, as well as the technological acumen needed to pull it off, millennials are uniquely positioned as valuable players in the new gig economy, as well as contract employment and freelance work.

Keep all these factors in mind, then, the next time you attend an HR meeting or find yourself presented with an opportunity to change internal policies, mission statements, or community involvement, at the corporate level.  Not only will you be making a palpable, concrete change you can really get behind, but you’ll also be forging a path toward greater opportunity for all, rather than a select few: that’s the kind of change we should all be striving toward, daily.

Image credit: Flickr/Kieran Lynam

Daphne Stanford writes poetry and nonfiction and believes in the power of art, education, and community radio to change the world.  Since 2012, she's been hosting “The Poetry Show!” every Sunday at 5 p.m., Mountain Time, on Radio Boise (KRBX 89.9/93.5 FM).  Follow her on Twitter @TPS_on_KRBX.

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on Bond Street.

By Bond Street Staff

If someone were to say the phrase “urban agriculture,” quaint community gardens would probably come to mind. A vital resource, especially in major metropolises like New York and Chicago, these gardens usually contain a row of tomatoes, perhaps some other vegetables, and much needed green space—respite from the concrete jungle. In 2008, longtime friends Viraj Puri and Eric Haley, who were both working and living in NYC, started talking about starting a green business together. They had the idea of building greenhouses in cities, and their idea took off in a serious way.

Today, Gotham Greens is “a global pioneer in the field of urban agriculture and a leading regional producer of local vegetables and herbs,” as stated by the office of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who assisted the opening of their 60,000-square-foot space in Queens in 2015. This is big, even compared to the 15,000 square feet of their first greenhouse in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, which they opened above a bowling alley. Besides scale, what’s big about this idea is the commitment to green agriculture: the millions of pounds of fresh produce are grown pesticide free, using renewable energy.

And of course, the carbon footprint from transportation is nil compared to shipping food from farms across the U.S. and world. Looking to revolutionize the concept of urban agriculture, Vaj Puri and Eric Haley, along with their third partner Jenn Nelkin Frymark, have developed a model of urban agriculture that’s changing not only how we think of farming, but of our cities too. Below, Puri and Haley talk about how they started Gotham Greens, the challenges of such an ambitious idea, and their favorite vegetable.

Bond Street: What’s the origin story of Gotham Greens? What led to its founding?

Viraj Puri: We were inspired by innovation and technology, and driven by a sense of duty to address ecological issues facing our agricultural system. It was winter in NYC and we realized that most of the produce we were finding in the supermarkets was coming from places like Mexico, California, and Israel. We realized that by the time the produce made its way here, it was at least a week old and had changed hands multiple times. We also began to notice that consumer preferences were shifting toward more local and sustainably produced food. We wanted to create a sustainable farming company that could revolutionize the notion of how fresh local produce can be grown and distributed, while making a profound positive impact on inner city communities and the environment. It was exhilarating and humbling at the same time.

Bond Street: How did you first attempt this?

VP: It was late 2008 and both Eric and I were living and working in New York; I was working at an environmental engineering firm and Eric at a private equity and advisory firm. We had been friends for years and were interested in starting a cool green business that could have a big impact. We were both interested in food, agriculture, clean energy, and green building, so we researched the enormous impact that conventional agriculture had on the natural world in terms of resource consumption and pollution. I had exposure to hydroponic greenhouses and it seemed like a great technology to bring into cities. So we wrote a business plan and decided to embark on a journey: together with our third partner, Jenn Nelkin Frymark, we built our flagship greenhouse, the first commercial scale rooftop greenhouse in the United States, in 2011.

Bond Street: That’s in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, right?

VP: It’s a state of the art greenhouse facility in Greenpoint. We feel it represented a shift in the concept of urban farming from a seasonal community gardening resource, to a year-round, viable, commercial scale farming enterprise. Eight years later, we have four greenhouses across two cities and over 140 employees.

Bond Street: Give me an idea of the basic structure of Gotham Greens—what’s the model of urban agriculture that you’ve developed?

VP: Simply put, we grow premium quality local produce in high tech, climate controlled greenhouses, year round. That means, even in the dead of winter, we provide our customers— supermarkets, restaurants, caterers—with fresh produce within a couple of hours of harvest. Our pesticide-free produce is grown using ecologically sustainable methods in 100% clean, electricity-powered urban rooftop greenhouses. We use advanced, re-circulating hydroponic techniques to maintain precision plant nutrition. Hydroponic farming, when practiced effectively, can be very efficient, using a fraction of the amount of resources as traditional farming practices. This enables us to use 1/10th the amount of water as traditional soil based practices, while also eliminating all agricultural runoff.

Bond Street: This level of efficiency must help both the environmental impact and your bottom line.

VP: Another major aspect of our model is the productivity: our advanced growing methods yield 20-30 times more product per acre than field production, while eliminating any use of arable land. Our 170,000 square feet of greenhouses across the four facilities produce yields equivalent to over 100 acres of conventional field farming. This makes us the largest urban agriculture company in the world.

Bond Street: What was the biggest business challenge at the time of starting up?

Eric Haley: Starting any business is extremely challenging, but for most businesses, there are at least a couple of models to use as a point of reference. In 2011 when we were designing our flagship Brooklyn greenhouse, there was no blueprint to follow, so we had to learn as we went along. There was no precedent for what we were trying to pull off. People thought we were crazy when we told them we wanted to build large-scale greenhouses on city roofs. We initially faced some setbacks, challenges we faced included finding the right real estate and landlord. Logistics, regulatory challenges (zoning, permitting, etc.), and high upfront costs were probably our biggest challenges.

Bond Street: What was the most important lesson that you learned during that time?

EH: Perseverance goes a long way. Keep trucking no matter the setbacks you face. Wearing many hats is part and parcel of starting a business, but you can’t be afraid to delegate and grow your team early on.

Bond Street: Walk me through the Greenpoint greenhouse.

VP: Our Greenpoint greenhouse measures over 15,000 square feet and annually produces over 100,000 pounds of fresh leafy greens. The greenhouse remains one of the most high profile contemporary urban agriculture projects worldwide. Designed and built with sustainability at the forefront, the facilities’ electrical demands are offset by 60 kW of on site solar PV panels with high efficiency design features, including LED lighting, advanced glazing, passive ventilation, and thermal curtains. Rooftop integration further reduces energy use while serving to insulate the historic Greenpoint Wood Exchange building, which once housed a bowling alley, below.

Bond Street: When did Whole Foods come on as a client?

VP: Shortly after launching our first greenhouse, we had attracted retail customers such as Whole Foods Market and notable restaurants such as Gramercy Tavern, so we knew that we were on to something. Whole Foods Market has been one of our early supporters and customers since day one. They approached us with the idea of building a greenhouse on top of their flagship Brooklyn store in Gowanus; it measures over 20,000 square feet and grows over 200,000 pounds of fresh greens and herbs each year, much of which are sold in the store downstairs. This project represents the first commercial scale greenhouse farm integrated into a supermarket.

Bond Street: Seems like a simple supply chain.

VP: We harvest our produce every day and bring it right downstairs through the elevator to the store below. We are literally converting food miles into food footsteps!

Bond Street: Tell me about the greenhouse in Chicago.

VP: In 2015, we opened our largest and most technologically advanced greenhouse in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago’s south side. It’s over 75,000 square feet and annually grows up to 10 million heads of leafy greens and herbs, year-round. Spanning nearly two acres, the climate controlled facility is located on the second floor rooftop of Method Products manufacturing plant. We think the unique partnership between Gotham Greens and Method Products is a groundbreaking vision for a 21st century manufacturing facility. Method’s factory, designed by William McDonough + Partners, is the world’s first LEED-Platinum certified manufacturing plant in its industry.

Bond Street: What’s your best selling product? Any differences across markets?

EH: Our most popular products vary between markets but typical crowd pleasers are our Butterhead lettuce, Gourmet Lettuce Medley, and Arugula. Our Genovese Basil is a hit too. We grow a similar offering of products between NYC and Chicago, though we’ve got some special local ones. We’ve also customized the names to be locally relevant; for example our Blooming Brooklyn Crunch lettuce is known as Windy City Crunch in Chicago.

Bond Street: What are each of your favorite vegetables?

EH: Roasted vegetables. Any of them. All of them.

VP: Leafy greens. Any of them—all of them! If I had to pick one, I would say arugula.

Bond Street: How do you measure your environmental impact?

VP: We measure our environmental impact through a lot of monitoring and data collection of our growing and distribution process. According to our measurements, we use ten times less water than conventional farming while producing almost thirty times the yield. We use renewable sources of electricity and by delivering hyper-locally, we’re reducing food waste and the need for long distance trucking, and giving customers a fresher, better tasting and more nutritious product. We harvest our products every morning so they can be on retail shelves by lunch.

Bond Street: Do you have plans to open more facilities? Anything in the works that you can share?

VP: Our goal is to bring our brand of premium quality, sustainably grown local produce and innovative greenhouses to more cities across the country. Stay tuned!

Bond Street: What sort of marketing program does Gotham Greens employ?

EH: We partner with a variety of great organizations in NYC and Chicago, from non-profits to other local food producers and chefs. We’re also active on social media and use that as a way to provide information, connect with consumers, and show people a look at daily life on our farms. In our cities, consumers are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from and the environmental and public health issues surrounding conventional agriculture. It’s a platform that allows our customers to contact us easily and provide feedback, as well as ask questions about our sustainable farming practices. Maintaining an open line of communication helps us understand what consumers care about, and helps us foster ties with our local communities.

Bond Street: What does Gotham Green’s distribution network look like? How far do you ship, and how do you get it there fast?

VP: Long distance transport associated with trucking food across the country and the food waste that results from it are significant issues. An estimated 25–40% of food grown, processed and transported in the US gets thrown out before it even reaches our plates! At Gotham Greens we attempt to address these issues on a daily basis. Every day we harvest, pack and deliver our products within 24 hours of harvest with our fleet of trucks to ensure that our products are reaching the shelves and plates quickly.

Bond Street: Who are some of your customers, and how did you develop these relationships?

EH: Whole Foods Market has been an incredible partner. Back in 2011, they were one of our first customers and really support our mission of growing locally and sustainably. Building our second greenhouse on top of their flagship Brooklyn store was a really unique opportunity and we work closely with them to help tell that story to customers throughout their store.

VP: We work with a variety of supermarkets, restaurants, and foodservice providers; groups and restaurants in New York Tri-State and Chicagoland/Midwest regions, including Whole Foods Market, Jewel Osco, Target, Fresh Direct, Peapod, Union Market, Gramercy Tavern, Gibsons, and many more. We’re adding new customers all the time.

Bond Street: What’s the biggest business challenge that Gotham Greens currently faces?

EH: The demand for our product continues to outstrip the production. Last year we opened 2 massive facilities and we’re continuing to scale up and have a bunch of projects underway, which we’re excited to launch early next year. We want to continue growing sustainably in terms of both our farming practices and our company culture.

Bond Street: What, in your opinion, is the biggest environmental threat that the world currently faces?

VP: Climate change is causing widespread disruptions to weather patterns and unpredictability overall. Impacts on food production could be significant. Particularly concerning is that it’s likely to lead to a loss of arable land, disrupting food and water supply within a broad belt extending north and south of the equator, which encompasses some of the world’s most populous regions. The good news is that as a response to these concerns, scientists, farmers, policy makers and entrepreneurs are bringing attention to the issues and pushing toward more sustainable forms of agriculture.

Bond Street: How does one of your products address this issue directly?

EH: One new product and initiative that we just launched is Ugly Greens. It’s an effort to bring some attention to the issue of food waste. Approximately half the food we grow in the U.S. is thrown away, much of it for cosmetic and supply chain reasons. We’ve taken our slightly bruised and blemished product and rather than send it for composting, we’re packaging and selling them at a discount. In our industry, consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental and public health issues surrounding conventional agriculture including high resource use, food safety, pesticide use, long distance food transport, pollution, GMO’s and monoculture farming. We’re addressing each of those issues while providing economic development opportunities in our communities.

Bond Street: What’s the 5-year vision for Gotham Greens?

EH: To bring our model of urban farming to other cities in the U.S.

Quickfire:

Bond Street: What’s one book every entrepreneur should read?

VP: "Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage" by Alfred Lansing.

Bond Street: One brand that your admire:

VP: Patagonia.

Bond Street: What are your five favorite small businesses?

Gotham Greens:

1. Fleisher’s Craft Butchery


2. Other Half Brewing


3. Two Boots Pizza


4. BioLite


5. Parson’s Chicken and Fish

Images courtesy of Gotham Greens

By Tom Roberts.

I’ve lived in New York for the past five years. At times it feels like a total bubble, a kind of urban space pod somehow removed from nature. Everything you need is available at the press of a button, the touch of an app or the hail of a taxi. This amazing availability of services frees up time for us to do other things: work, learn, spend time with friends and, in the case of most New Yorkers, dream big.

This is the privileged world’s version of the effect that professor Hans Rosling talks about in one of his TED-talks; when his mother got her first washing machine, she could spend the hours she previously spent on hand-washing on other things, like reading to her child or studying English.

When you manage to break out of this bubble, you realize the realities of others pretty fast. 1.8 billion people lack access to something much more important than the automatic washing of clothes: clean and safe water and sanitation. Women and children in affected areas spend more than four hours a day walking to get water, something that takes us less than a minute in our homes.

As a reader of TriplePundit, chances are you are aware that the World Economic Forum at Davos named the global water crisis as the biggest challenge facing the planet, ahead of issues such as the massive spread of infectious diseases, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and climate change.

So why am I, a representative of a luxury vodka brand, writing a guest post here about it?

The answer is, of course, water. It is at the core of our product. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to manufacture vodka. The team at our distillery in Ahus, Sweden, is working hard with the local farmers to reuse and conserve every drop of water. No artificial irrigation is used for growing the wheat, no untreated waste-water is discharged into the environment and even the rainwater runoff from the distillery is captured and made available to local farmers.

However, all of this makes us “less bad”. It doesn’t do much for the 1.8 billion people lacking access to safe water.

But then you add the element of luxury, which brings about an interesting paradigm. I believe the culture of luxury is changing. We are experiencing an emerging collective conscious among a new generation. According to a report by the Luxury Institute and Positive Luxury, 88 percent of millennials and Generation Xers in the U.S. and U.K. believe brands need to do more good, not just “less bad." L’Oreal, for example, has taken note of this and positioned them as a leader within sustainability by diminishing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.

This generation doesn’t see luxury being about badge value, flaunting your wealth or showing off for the sake of it. Don’t get me wrong; luxury is still about authenticity and excellently-crafted products. But for the new generation it is also about purpose and soul.

Our purpose and soul with Elyx is about integrity, about pushing this culture of progressive luxury forward because the world needs more of that. We live it by encoding it in our business model: every bottle of Elyx sold in the US contributes to our partnership with Water For People.

Our first five year-goal is to provide at least 100,000 people with access to safe water for generations to come. In our first year we have raised nearly US$500,000 and built permanent water solutions servicing over 15,000 people. We believe this will create stronger bonds between our brand and our customers, as well as add value to current and future employees, but above all: it will draw attention to the global water crisis and help provide the most important drink in the world to those who need it most.

Image credit: Pixabay

Tom Roberts runs the Social Impact division at Absolut Elyx - Absolut’s new single estate vodka whose goal it is to overtake the luxury segment in vodka.

This week, by an almost 600-vote margin, the European Parliament voted to approve the global climate deal negotiated at last year’s COP21 climate talks in Paris. The European Union ratification makes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement legally binding.

The 610-38 vote pushed the world over the threshold that required 55 of the agreement’s signatories responsible for at least 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions to ratify the agreement in order to enter it into force. India ratified the agreement on Sunday, nudging it even closer to the finish line. And with the EU signing on to the agreement, along with member states including France and Germany, backers of the climate framework say this gives global action on climate change momentum with the COP22 talks in Marrakesh, Morocco, starting on Nov. 7.

The ratification comes at a time when the evidence suggests limiting climate change below a 2-degrees Celsius increase this century may fall short of the aggressive course of action needed. Last week, researchers at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory concluded that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere passed that psychological mark of 400 parts per million (PPM). And while progress has arguably been made on challenges such as repairing Earth’s oceans and halting deforestation, the world faces a massively long to-do list as it seeks to reduce carbon emissions while supporting a planet that could be home to 9 billion people by 2050.

The evidence also suggests that while countries and global organizations say they are committed to working together on climate change, the reality could be starkly different from what is printed on paper and signed. The World Bank, for example, has long been a vocal supporter of reforms designed to tackle climate change. But a few months after the international financial institution tasked with fighting global poverty urged Asian countries to scale back their coal-fired power plant projects, a social justice NGO accused the World Bank of secretly financing a coal boom across the region.

To that end, backing public statements with tangible action is by far the largest challenge the global community faces as it seeks to reduce climate change risks. The hard work, in fact, is just beginning.

One of the hurdles on stalling climate change is that some of the COP22 provisions do not launch for several years. So-called “facilitative dialogues” are set to begin in 2018. During those talks, the U.N. will evaluate countries’ efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other efforts to mitigate climate change risks. Another assessment will occur five years later.

In the meantime, countries must update their pledges on carbon emissions reductions by 2020. Unfortunately, such a long and drawn-out process reinforces the stereotype of the U.N. as a body in which global leaders gallivant around the globe making public statements while driving little progress.

And to many climate experts, the Paris Agreement goals, while noble, might not be effective. They say the world’s largest carbon emitters must take bolder action  – and that includes countries such as India and China, the latter of which is now the world’s manufacturing base. If developed countries want emerging economies to curb their carbon emissions, the richer countries will most likely have to pay, and that will not curry favor with many voters. Add the risk that successors to leaders such as Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau could ignore the COP22 directives with little recourse, and the future of these plans is still very much in doubt -- even if they are technically legally binding.

Nevertheless, there are some hopeful signs. Clean-energy technologies are becoming more scalable and cheaper, which will allow more countries to expand their deployment. Younger citizens seek faster action on climate change, and their voice and votes amplify their message. Finally, the business community realizes it needs to pay attention to environmental challenges if companies are going to stay viable in the long run – and they have the capacity necessary to help countries meet their individual targets.

Image credit: European Parliament/Flickr