Search

Dear Andy: We have a corporate giving program but our process is totally manual (about 16 different spreadsheets, hundreds of emails), and things are falling through the cracks. I want to move to something automated but am nervous about the transition and losing critical data. What do you recommend to make the transition easier? - Trapped Under Paperwork

Dear Trapped: I feel your pain. The patchwork process is difficult and time-consuming to manage. Luckily, there is a better way.

Moving to an automated system will allow you to spend significantly less time focusing on the details, giving you more time to accomplish your program objectives and build your company’s brand. However, like with any habit you’ve become accustomed to, the idea of change can be daunting.The good news is you most certainly do not need to start from scratch. The implementation can mirror your existing processes and thus make the transition straightforward and painless.

To alleviate some of your fears, let’s look at the pros of making the switch to an automated system that works the way you work. The advantages of SaaS and the Cloud are that you don’t have to worry about having the latest software or losing your data. It’s all handled by the state-of-the-art cloud. That flood of requests you receive can easily be tracked and routed to the right person.

Choosing the right automated solution depends on proper research. Just like you do with any other purchase, big or small, you’re better off if you know your ‘stuff’ up front. In order to make the transition easier, research what the software provider’s current clients say about their implementation experience. Our advice is to avoid systems that include hidden fees for changes. These systems require refinement and changes at the outset, and so you need to take that into account when you consider pricing.

Ideally the solution vendor will do a deep dive to understand your processes and consult with you to design your system. Look for a company who is proactive in making recommendations based on the best practices from experience with other clients. Check out how the company handles ongoing customer service. Will you have a dedicated team who understands your business and requirements? Are there additional costs associated with this support? What happens if you need to make a change?

Make sure you know the answers to these questions before you sign on with a new vendor. Many software companies will set you up with their product, provide a minimal amount of training and then leave you on your own. When the program goes live and changes need to be made, the company charges significant fees to incorporate the changes or add additional features.

The truth is, companies and corporate giving programs constantly change, and your contract needs to include support to build out an online platform that evolves with these changes. Look for an expert client success team that can advise you on best practices and incorporate product improvement based on your feedback. This may seem more costly at the outset, but if this is included you’ll save time and money.

Hope that helps!

Image credit: Pexels

Andy Cummings, Director of Client Solutions at Versaic, has worked with hundreds of clients on how to get the best out of their philanthropy management system. Do you have a request or project management work issue? Ask Andy! Email your question to: info@versaic.com. Anonymity included.

By Jacquelyn Ottman

I’ve been spending a lot more time these days on how best to change consumption culture through the prism of ‘zero waste.' But when the first wave of articles about Trucost’s new study prepared for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” came across my screen (including an analysis by Leon Kaye here on TriplePundit), my interest was piqued. Could plastics be as ‘green’ as the study seemed to suggest?

I spent the weekend studying it and the “Valuing Plastics” study (2014) also by Trucost, as well as the related “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016) by the World Economic Forum. I also exchanged two rounds of clarifying emails with the folks at Trucost. I came to the following conclusions:

By opting to focus on the question of plastics’ environmental costs versus alternative materials, the report curiously reignites what was debated ad infinitum in the ‘materials wars’ that many of us lived through during the 1990s. Since that time, many consumer brands opted to transition to plastics from the more recyclable metal (e.g., coffee cans), glass (mayonnaise, ketchup) and paperboard (milk cartons) based upon the environmental and financial costs, as well as other benefits of ‘light-weighting.'

So, this rehash of what seems fairly well known at this point (and even acknowledged within the Trucost/ACC study itself as the benefits of plastic soda bottles, car composites and food packaging) seems to distract from the more relevant and pressing issues these other reports recommend -- namely, more public disclosure of specific risks of plastics by the companies involved and greater focus on end-of-life management aspects, e.g., recycling, reuse and preventing the escape of plastics into marine environments, especially in Asia.

Despite efforts by the Trucost folks to help me understand otherwise, this report appears to grossly oversimplify its argument by first lumping all plastics together and then assuming that all plastics will be replaced in wholesale fashion by alternative materials at what amounts to over four times the weight of plastics. They also assume that an equal amount of alternative materials as plastics will wind up as marine debris, despite suggestions earlier in the report that the unique nature of plastics -- e.g., its application in single-use containers and its ability to be blown by the wind (plastic bags) -- makes it particularly susceptible to becoming marine debris.

As a green marketer, I can’t help but note another concern with this report: Despite heed paid to ‘areas for improvement’ by Trucost, readers will misconstrue plastics in general to be ‘green.' For the Federal Trade Commission, the government body that monitors truth in advertising claims, consumer takeaway — not intended communication — is what determines if a claim is misleading. Indeed, at least one press report has already declared as much in its headline, “Vindicated: Plastics are Green After All."

A reminder: The latest iteration of the FTC’s “Green Guides” for environmental marketing now warns against the making of ‘general environmental’ claims.

I applaud Trucost for including the recommendations that it did in the ACC report with regard to improving the environmental costs of plastics. However, as someone immersed in all things ‘zero waste,’ I missed more of a discussion of specific opportunities for the industry to promote waste reduction (outside of light-weighting) and reuse, things that plastics are well suited for. Doing so would have helped Trucost more directly address the opportunities raised in the “New Plastics Economy” report, as well as underscore the credibility that comes with promoting the responsible consumption of one’s product.

Image: Steven Depolo (Flickr)

Jacquelyn Ottman is a pioneer in green marketing, author of “The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding” and “How To Make Credible Green Marketing Claims: What The Updated FTC Green Guides Means for Marketers”.

Many heads have been scratched since last month's Republican National Convention, when something strange happened. During the climactic final night of the event, Silicon Valley tycoon and Facebook board member Peter Thiel appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to out himself as a leading supporter of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In the few short weeks since, the head-scratching grew quite a bit harder. Why has Thiel, practically alone within the rarefied class of high-tech billionaire sophisticates who claim citizenship in the U.S., continued to support a presidential candidate who appeals directly to the emerging "alt-right" white nationalist electorate?

The media, Peter Thiel and Donald Trump

Only Peter Thiel can answer that question. In the meantime, though, Thiel's role as the not-so-secret-anymore funder behind the notorious Hulk Hogan "sex tapes" lawsuit that bankrupted Gawker Media provides one key point of commonality between himself and Trump: both men are self assigned policers of "media bullies."

In Thiel's case, that has taken the form of destroying a media organization that criticized his business practices. Though he attributes the Gawker lawsuit to personal privacy issues, Gawker Media's previously defunct Valleywag branch was a persistent, if tiny, critic and lampooner of Thiel, and Gawker itself drew repeated attention to the massive failure of Thiel's hedge fund, Clarium.

On his part, Trump has loudly and frequently complained that he is the victim of negative press, and he has become notorious for booting reporters out of his campaign events.

Rather than destroying existing media platforms, though, it seems that Trump has formulated a plan to establish one of his own.

Political observers are beginning to gather evidence that Trump is planning to create a media organization that will outflank anything currently existing on the right wing.

That theory has gathered steam in recent days, following the recruitment of Steve Bannon (of Breitbart News) and Roger Ailes (of Fox News) to the Trump campaign.

Charles Harder and the media

That brings us to another important point of commonality between Thiel and Trump: the attorney Charles Harder. If the name doesn't ring a bell, join the club. Harder worked in relative obscurity until this past May, when he edged into the media spotlight as the lawyer who received a reported $10 million stake from Thiel for his services in the Gawker lawsuit.

In June, Harder popped up again as the legal force behind Trump's "Hairgate" letter to Gawker. The letter demanded an apology for an elaborate investigation of Trump's notoriously unique approach to hair styling.

Now it appears that Trump -- and by extension, Thiel -- have upped the ante considerably.

As reported by Politico, earlier this week Harder sent a notice on behalf of Trump's wife Melania, threatening to sue the Daily Mail of the U.K. for publishing a somewhat salacious piece about her past career.

According to Politico, Harder also threatened action against Inquisitr and BipartisanReport, both of which have already apologized for re-publishing the Daily Mail report. Later this week, Fortune Magazine added two another media organizations, The Week and Liberal America, to the Melania Trump lawsuit list.

Be careful what you wish for, part deux

Ironically, the lawsuit threat may come right back to bite Donald Trump -- and by extension, Thiel.

Liberal America is a niche organization that no-one seems to have heard of until it appeared on the lawsuit list. Now that it got a mention in Fortune, it is probably experiencing an uptick in traffic.

Liberal America is among the organizations that published an apology for repeating the Melania Trump story, but it did so "under duress." If you're curious about exactly what that means, the Liberal America apology appears under the somewhat unapologetic heading, "Trump Lawyers Said Melania Didn’t F**k For Money, Forced Us To Apologize, So Here It Is."

In case anyone missed the Daily Mail piece about Melania Trump, the apology provided Liberal America an opportunity to repeat, point by point, all of the allegations that appeared in that publication.

As for Peter Thiel, the Harder letter provided both Fortune and Politico with an opportunity to rehash the Gawker case for anyone who missed that.

Thiel has already been roundly criticized for his role in the Gawker case, particularly so because of his status as a Facebook board member. Politico is a niche organization that appeals mainly to political junkies, but Fortune is a mainstream business publication and a legacy from the heyday of printed media.

Fortune seems to have taken special care to rehash the Gawker case in gory detail, winding up by noting what may be the ultimate irony:

After the judgment was handed down, Gawker filed for bankruptcy protection, and last week its assets were sold to Univision for $135 million.

That's right, Thiel won the battle but now Univision has picked up the Gawker mantle. Though the company reportedly will not continue Gawker as a standalone site, industry observers attribute Univision's acquisition of the rest of Gawker Media's sites to a push for grabbing, and holding, new and younger audiences across a range of topics including the tech website Gizmodo.

That demographic is not particularly attracted to Trump's white nationalist messaging, and as a Spanish-language media powerhouse, neither is Univision.

It's also worth noting that Univision is co-owned by Haim Saban, who is a chief financial backer of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency.

Trump, Thiel, Clinton and the alt-right bombshell

The media angle has revealed some interesting points of intersection between Thiel and Trump during the course of the campaign...and there is so much more.

Earlier this week, the Clinton campaign announced that her upcoming speech in Nevada on Thursday will directly address the "disturbing connection" between Donald Trump and white nationalism.

That announcement gave the Washington Post, for one, a golden opportunity to comb over the origins of the extremist alt-right movement:

The alt-right began with a speech the conservative writer Paul Gottfried gave in 2008, after the Republican Party's electoral wipeout. Gottfried called for an "alternative right" that could defeat "the neoconservative-controlled conservative establishment." That idea was soon adopted by the “identitarian” nationalist Richard Spencer, who founded an Alternative Right website, but it was also claimed by supporters of Ron Paul and conservatives who opposed multiculturalism.

If you are a regular reader of Triple Pundit, Ron Paul and Peter Gottfried will ring a bell or two.

Peter Thiel was the chief financial backer of Ron Paul's failed presidential bid in 2012.

Thiel also happens to a scheduled speaker at the upcoming Property and Freedom Society conference in Turkey next month, an organization that featured none other than Paul Gottfried at its inaugural meeting.

It looks like Thiel better be prepared to duck on Thursday, or he might get hit by whatever bombs Clinton is preparing to lob at Trump.

Stay tuned.

Photo (cropped and altered): via Sportsfile Web Summit on flickr.com, creative commons license.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Sheep's wool has long been touted as one of nature's best insulators. It's no surprise that both mountain climbers and astronauts frequently wear wool to stay warm. Its capacity to shield the body from the stiffest of winds and bitter cold temperatures has promoted its versatility as a comfortable multi-season fabric.

But as one San Francisco startup has found, it's also got a knack for warming homes. Havelock Wool, LLC specializes in wool insulation products that can be used in housing construction from the ground up. The company, which has its roots in New Zealand sheep herding country, has developed several products that are now being used in North American homes -- including environments known for their warm, sunny weather.

The company recently tried out its products on a 17,000 foot mansion in Newport Beach, a destination harbor town smack in the middle of Southern California's coastline. As with most insulating products, the material's ability to lock out cold temps also gives it the ability to insulate homes during hotter weather. It absorbs moisture, drys out naturally and doesn't become moldy.

But its most appealing quality is its environmental benefits. Unlike foam insulation, wool can be grown and harvested without exposure to chemicals. The old system of dipping the sheep in chemical baths that help ward off parasites had a purpose, but the costs to the environment and to those exposed to the wool often outweighed the benefits. Havelock Wool says it raises and harvests its wool naturally without chemical additions.

It's also highly fire resistant, which means no need for chemical retardants. Borax is used in some cases to increase its retardant capabilities.

There has been increasing effort in California in recent years to encourage furniture manufacturers to migrate away from chemical materials like foam, which are often used in baby mattresses. Havelock's success in the insulation sector is further evidence that natural sources can replace chemical ones. According to the Healthy House Institute, wool insulation actually has a higher R-rating than fiberglass, cellulose or other synthetic materials.

Havelock is one of a growing list of companies that now offer environmentally friendly insulation for construction. The company offers two products: Loose fill insulation that can be added to walls with the help of an insulation blower (without the increased risk of respiratory complications from inhaling fiberglass) and batt insulation. Loose fill is often used for acoustic properties (wool makes a great sound barrier), while batt insulation can be installed easily by hand. It has great insulating properties as well and often can be installed without professional assistance.

Of course, savvy homebuilders always want to keep price in mind. Sheep's wool (not to be confused with synthetic rock wool) , like most eco-friendly alternatives, costs more. Havelock maintains that the cost difference isn't significant. Other sources back their claim up. UK blogger Peter Mueller points out that cost -- both environmental and commercial -- are often greater the farther the product must be shipped. With California-based wool companies like Havelock, the benefits of migrating away from synthetic fillers and batt products often has its hidden benefits for the consumer as well as for the environment.

 

Images:Fishermansdaughter; Havelock Wool LLC; Keith Ellwood

 

 

As politicians seek ways to combat the obesity epidemic here in the U.S., taxes and even bans on sodas have been floated in cities across the U.S. When former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg first tried to tax and then limit the size of sodas in the Big Apple, howls of “the nanny state is here” roared across the country. Beverage industry trade groups screamed bloody murder over the cap on soda sizes that could be sold in NYC, and eventually New York State’s Court of Appeals ruled against the ban, saying the city’s health board lacked any such authority. Now an ex-mayor, Bloomberg has not given up. And a recent study on the effects of a similar policy in Berkeley, CA may give him even more ammunition as a campaign he bankrolled in Philadelphia was approved by its city council earlier this year.

According to the American Journal of Pediatric Health, consumption of sugary drinks such as cola (technically sugar sweetened beverages, or SSBs) in the Bay Area city of 117,000 decreased by 21 percent since the city implemented the tax in March 2015. Meanwhile, the consumption of these sugary drinks increased in nearby Oakland and San Francisco by 4 percent. The study's authors based their conclusions in part on almost 1,000 questionnaires distributed across the city to residents.

This is one of the first studies gauging the effects of a soda tax (as other initiatives have been voted down or repealed), so we are still in the Wild West of sorting out the effectiveness of these measures. Nevertheless, advocates for regulations, bans or taxes on sugary drinks are going to tout this study, giving beverage companies in turn more headaches.

The penny-per-ounce tax was approved by voters by a 3-to-1 margin in November 2014 despite “Big Soda” spending over $2 million to defeat the measure at the ballot box. Supporters of the measure, including Bloomberg, raised $650,000 in their quest to pass the measure.

City officials claim the Berkeley soda tax serves many purposes, including more funding of public health professionals, school nutrition programs and, of course, initiatives to educate about and limit access to sugar-sweetened beverages.

The American Beverage Association, one of several large trade groups representing large soft drink companies, has responded with its usual rhetoric, calling the taxes “unfair” and “regressive.” The association also describes soda taxes as punishing to small businesses and urges politicians to find “comprehensive” solutions to address the complex issues causing obesity. But the issues are not really complex: bottom line, weight gain is caused by ingesting too many calories while not exercising enough to burn those consumed. And sugar, which is finding its way into more foods in more forms, is a huge part of the problem.

Furthermore, the beverage companies are not offering any solutions to the obesity problem here in the U.S., where an estimated two-thirds of adults, and one-third of children, are either overweight or obese. The links between food and beverage companies and obesity is analogous to what has long gone on with other industries. Consumer packaged goods companies have made more and more disposable products, leaving it up to municipalities to deal with the waste these goods generate. Energy companies have provided fuel and electricity, but have pocketed the profits while leaving it up to governments to deal with the effects of pollution. And beverage companies have generated copious amounts of revenue, while local governments have been saddled with paying for health care costs racked up by society’s poorest citizens.

So if the likes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo want to stave off regulations and taxes targeted at their products, they need to come up with real solutions instead of just shouting “no.” And that window is rapidly closing. Soda consumption, according to Fortune, has fallen to a 30-year low—and the U.S. was home to 86 million less people back in 1985 than its current population. The beverage giants’ current strategy of buying companies such as Honest Tea or Naked Juice can only go so far. Therefore, these companies need to take action now, or suffer more losses as millennials spurn their products – and making the beverage companies look more predatory if their only markets are in poorer neighborhoods and regions where more healthful options are either lacking or too pricey.

Image credit: Oleg Sklyanchuk/Flickr

Daniela Lopez grew up in the Mission neighborhood of San Francisco, a concrete jungle worlds away from the lush green forests and smells of eucalyptus familiar to any wilderness hiker. While only miles from the nearest state and national parks, Lopez had never gone hiking or backpacking until the age of 14, when she joined a guided youth development backpacking trip that took her from the noisy city streets of San Francisco to the majestic shores of Big Sur.

That experience not only changed her view of the outdoors, but it also transformed her perception of what she was capable of achieving. Years later, Lopez now works with the organization that led her first excursion, the nonprofit Bay Area Wilderness Training, and takes city youth to the outdoors.

Lopez’ story reflects a growing trend in the engagement and mobilization to get diverse youth outdoors – a movement that the outdoor industry considers not only valuable, but necessary.

Building a new model

A common saying among outdoor industry insiders goes like this: Most hikers and backpackers are either “newlywed or nearly dead” – a reference to the explicit lack of diversity often seen in the great outdoors. More astonishing is the fact that about 70 percent of those who spend time in local, regional or national parks are White/Caucasian, while only 10 percent are African American or Hispanic/Latino, and only 3 percent are Asian American.

Given America’s changing demographic landscape, which indicates that we will be a majority-minority nation by 2020, those facts do not bode well for the future of outdoor participation or the sustainability of related industries.

But things are changing. Just last year, Latinos spent more than any other group on outdoor gear, according to an Outdoor Industry Association consumer research study. The long-held notion of what an “outdoorsy” type looks like (think of old Sierra Club photos) is being dispelled.

And global outdoor industry giants have seen the writing on the wall.

Surveying demographic data and recognizing a need for change, outdoor retailers such as REI and sportswear giant Columbia understand that a new model to connect with multicultural communities is required to remain relevant within the country’s changing market.

That’s why a few years ago REI and Columbia partnered with the National Park Foundation to launch American Latino Expedition, a campaign to raise awareness of national parks among American Latino and multicultural communities across the nation. As part of the campaign, organizers invited 14 Latino bloggers, social media personalities, and community influencers to take an overnight trek in Grand Teton National Park and share their outdoor experience through social media, using the hashtag #ALEx14 throughout National Hispanic Heritage Month.

The campaign garnered thousands of social media interactions, and that success spurred the launch of the Find Your Park Expedition (#FYPx) campaign launched last year, which invited eight multicultural millennials to take a similar excursion to Mesa Verde National Park. Similar to the American Latino Expedition campaign, the Find Your Park Expedition resonated with multicultural audiences not only because messages were personal and authentic, but because they were shared by people who look like them – not corporate voices just trying to sell stuff.

Such campaigns provide the foundation to build diverse outdoor participation and tap into a new base of potential customers and loyal brand followers. It also speaks to the power of corporate-nonprofit partnerships and influencer engagement.

“The success of the Find Your Park Expedition again demonstrates the incredible value of partnership,” said Scott Welch, Global Corporate Relations Manager at Columbia Sportswear. “The resulting increase in capacity, infrastructure, reach, and efficiency allows each of us to surpass our individual goals and objectives.”

Outdoors for all

Over the past decade, a growing coalition of outdoor organizations and brands have been working (often together) to connect diverse youth to nature and break down barriers to access the great outdoors.

Barriers such as lack of proper gear, inadequate access to transportation, and fear of the unknown often impede low-income, diverse youth to get outdoors.

Organizations such as Youth Outside, an Oakland-based capacity builder, designs cultural relevancy programs and helps address the lack of diversity within the world of corporate, nonprofit and environmental education and outdoor youth programming to connect youth to nature.

“The perception is changing from ‘let's take youth outdoors’ (because without us they’d never get outdoors) to ‘we're doing this together (we’re creating an experience together that they can replicate on their own) – so the mentality and framework becomes more empowered,” said Laura Rodriguez, Program Officer at Youth Outside. “The parks belong to them too, and our programs help to ensure that all youth can get outdoors.”

Protecting the future

In certain states, including California, Texas and New Mexico, people of color already constitute the majority of the population. For the sake of preserving our state and national parks, inspiring future stewards of the planet, and ensuring the viability of the outdoor industry, it’s important that all youth find access points to nature.

“Outdoor experiences really benefit youth, and getting youth of color outdoors is really important,” said Scott Wolland, Executive Director and CEO of Bay Area Wilderness Training (BAWT), a project of Earth Island Institute. “It’s about access, equity, it’s future voters, and it’s helping to build a better planet.

According to Wolland, research shows that unplugging from technology and being in green spaces also has a positive effect on kids’ self esteem and leadership. BAWT, of which 85 percent of participants are youth of color and 74 percent come from low income households, connects teachers and youth workers to their outdoor gear libraries – most of which was built through product donations from companies such as The North Face, Columbia, Osprey and Eureka! – that way youth organizations and schools may outfit their groups for trips free of charge.

BAWT is one of a handful of successful organizations across the country dedicated to getting diverse youth outdoors, for the sake of us all.

“When young people get outside, they see that there’s a bigger world out there that’s greater than what they might know,” said Wolland. “And when they learn about climate change in the context of being outdoors, it can connect them to protecting their own futures.”

Photos courtesy of Bay Area Wilderness Training

Analysts keep smacking down Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors, but the luxury car and now solar company keeps roaring back at its critics. This week the company staked its claim to having what is now the fastest production car ever manufactured in history.

Well, maybe the new Model S P100D with Ludicrous mode is technically the third fastest car. But Tesla makes its point that the LaFerrari and the Porsche 918 Spyder were limited run cars that cost over $1 million and cannot be purchased new. The all-wheel drive Model S P100D, however, can go from 0 to 60 MPH in 2.5 seconds. And while the aforementioned European models are two-seaters with little extra space, the four-door Model S P100D can seat five people and has extra room for doing those pesky errands or embarking on a road trip.

Speaking of road trips, Tesla is also boasting that the Model S’s range has improved to 315 miles per charge when it is loaded with the company’s new 100 kWh battery. Tesla claims this makes the Model S the first electric car to go farther than 300 miles per charge. That ability to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco and extinguish consumers’ “range anxiety” may arrive soon after all.

It is Tesla’s new battery pack that is catching attention within the small but growing world of electric vehicles (EVs). In creating this more powerful battery pack, Tesla has loaded more energy capacity while still incorporating the same design. Tesla’s customers can upgrade from their current 90 kWh battery packs to the new 100 kWh version for a charge. According to Fortune, these newest battery packs can only be installed in Tesla’s more high-end at the moment, but will eventually make them available for all Models S and X in the long term. Musk’s Tuesday afternoon announcement about this new battery development led Tesla’s stock to spike up almost 2 percent in value before leveling off at the end of the day.

It will take several years until more consumers will be able to enjoy the fruits of Tesla’s innovation. The EV blog CleanTechnica says the P100D will add another $10,000 to that model’s sticker price, and the Ludicrous option will add another $10,000. Before any federal or state incentives kick in, that brings the sticker price to $135,500. Nevertheless, the automakers are watching Tesla nervously as they try to ramp up the production of their EV models. Despite rumors that it is falling behind schedule, GM says it will launch the production of its all-electric Chevy Bolt by the end of this month. BMW is also on target to make its BMW i8 all electric. Even though all electric vehicles have not even reached 1 percent of all sales in the U.S., the market is expanding as auto manufacturers are seeking to stay viable in the long run.

But according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, far more could be done in order for EVs to become entrenched in the marketplace. The NGO released a report that says while the interest and market here in the U.S. is there, automakers are doing a poor job of making these cars available, especially in California. “You can’t buy a car you can’t find,” says the lead author of the UCS study, which urges the car companies to sell its electric cars in more regional markets.

Image credit: Tesla Motors

This article expands upon the Corporate Offset Programs Primer that first appeared in TriplePundit in June. This follow-up piece explores why buyers develop and implement offset programs. Additionally, readers can gain an understanding of the nuts and bolts of different offset project types available in today’s marketplace in a TriplePundit piece from March.

By Sheldon Zakreski

Several different motivations may inspire your company to purchase offsets. Identifying the lead driver, or drivers, behind your company’s interest in offsets will help to guide how you design your program and what type of offsets to pursue.

Retail connection

The desire of businesses to connect and align with their retail customers’ values is one of the most common factors behind corporate offset purchases. The challenge here is developing a deeper understanding of what exactly are your customers’ values.

For specialized businesses that provide a distinct product, tying the offset to the core business is a winning strategy for connecting with customers. For example, NW Natural, a gas company based in Portland, Oregon, offers its end-use customers carbon offsets from projects that increase the production of biogas as an energy source. This offset type directly links to mitigating the climate impact of NW Natural’s core product—supplying natural gas as an energy source. Their chosen offset type therefore resonates more strongly with their customers than other offset types such as forest conservation projects.

For larger companies that sell a multitude of products, it can be more difficult to make a direct connection with environmentally conscious customers. This is where focus group research can help to identify what project type or types will be most positively perceived by a company’s customers. Additionally, companies can design programs that consider offsets from a broad number of project types. Companies that rely on diverse project types may find that a certification program such as Green-e Climate is useful. While the Green-e program isn’t a technical project standard, it is a “truth in advertising” standard that verifies offsets from a company’s portfolio rely on credible technical offset project standards such as the American Carbon Registry and the Climate Action Reserve.

Commercial connection

The desire to connect and align with customer values also extends to wholesalers; however, the considerations are somewhat different when your customers are other companies. Wholesalers often work on smaller margins than retailers, so the cost of offsets, whether it’s from the margin or charged as a premium, can be a major factor in program design. Hess, a company that markets petroleum, natural gas, and electricity to commercial customers has a long-running carbon offset program.

Mitigate risk

There is a growing body of research that indicates a variety of corporations face substantial economic risks from climate change. Given the very real threat that climate change poses to the bottom line, a driver for implementing and ratcheting up a carbon reduction commitment is to mitigate long-term financial risks to your business.

The financial sector is an industry that inherently needs to track and manage financial risks. Perhaps not coincidentally, they are a leading sector when it comes to mitigating their carbon footprint and buying offsets as part of their overall carbon mitigation efforts. A recent Ecosystem Marketplace report on corporate voluntary carbon reduction efforts found that the financial sector has more than three times as many companies that buy offsets than the next leading sector. The finance sector is headmost in the leader’s pack, as this report also notes that companies that purchase offsets outpace companies that do not buy offsets when it comes to direct reduction measures.

Prepare for compliance

The voluntary market serves a vital role as a useful testing ground to prepare for a future compliance market. This was the rationale behind the launch of the Chicago Climate Exchange in the 2000’s. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board’s initial adoption of offset protocols for their compliance market relied on tested offset protocol sectors such as forestry, livestock methane destruction, and destruction of ozone depleting substances. The experience of evaluating, contracting, and managing contracts for offsets will serve companies well should they face a carbon compliance mandate down the line. Delta Air Lines was the second leading offset buyer in 2014 according to the aforementioned Ecosystem Marketplace report. Delta’s motivation for jumping into the voluntary market was to prepare for a compliance market that will launch in 2021 to regulate international aviation emissions.

While the desire to connect with customers is the common perception on why companies choose to offset, it is only one of several motivations. There can be diverse motivations behind launching an offset program. Understanding the leading driver or drivers—whether it’s to create a positive perception among consumers, risk management, or for building expertise—is key to deciding what types of offsets are the best fit for a corporate offset program.

Image credit: Flickr/Chesapeake Bay Program

Sheldon Zakreski is the Director of Carbon Compliance for The Climate Trust.

By W. Scott Tew

Solving tough problems requires the left side of the brain and the right side of the brain working together. The right side brings imagination and holistic thinking, and the left side brings the practical and logical solutions. The approach to figuring out how to incorporate energy efficiency across all business functions is no different – it requires a plan incorporating both logical and creative strategies. With commercial buildings responsible for 16 percent of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, business leaders are looking for ways to improve their overall energy efficiency and to reduce both their carbon footprint and total energy costs.

As we work toward meeting aggressive greenhouse gas emissions targets, a key piece of any effective energy efficiency strategy, we need to move beyond operational-level strategies for reducing energy use, such as installing efficient lighting or purchasing renewable energy offsets. While these operational strategies certainly have their place, we can unlock unexpected opportunities for embedding energy efficiency across a business by using both sides of the brain and applying a little creative thinking. Specifically, integrating energy efficiency and sustainability into product design, connected solutions and employees can help businesses reap significant energy gains.

1. Recreating product design processes

As energy efficiency and sustainability become engrained across all business functions, there’s a substantial opportunity within product design for improvement. Traditional product design approaches focus on satisfying the end-user. However, this approach needs to be altered by incorporating “cradle-to-cradle” thinking, or thinking through the life of a product, from the origin of materials through the customer experience. One strategy to consider in product design processes is life cycle assessments (LCAs). LCAs can help identify hot spots, or areas of high environmental impact, which can then be addressed directly by the product design teams. Beyond LCAs, end-of-use plans and risk assessments can also help provide specific insight to the product design team on how to ensure they are in compliance with new sustainability and energy efficiency standards that may affect the product.

As businesses mature in their sustainability thinking, we need to revise common business practices andcreate new processes. Depending on what tools and assessments work best for your product design team, it’s important to standardize a process that is integrated into the design system so that it becomes the “de facto” practice for that business function. By creating a standard process, you are ensuring sustainability and energy are constantly top of mind, which is how you will fundamentally change the products of the future.

2. Tapping data through connected solutions

Connected solutions are also helping businesses create new processes, as the proliferation of information technology and smart, connected products enables the constant collection of data. Analytics powered by data from connected sensors across a building can help inform decisions regarding energy usage. These sensors measure the “energy landscape” of a building - everything from weather data to availability of energy sources.  These connected solutions can help optimize the entire grid, which can lead to significant energy savings.

For example, we are working with movie theaters to cost-effectively manage temperatures and reduce energy use. The key to this is installing building management systems which leverage connected solutions to process a variety of data points that provide insight on how to provide the most comfortable indoor viewing environment. For example, this management system incorporates data from ticket sales, so it can predict how many bodies will heat up the theater and can prepare the theater accordingly prior to the show. This type of “predictive cooling” helps theaters eliminate the expensive situation of over-correcting a room that is too warm, as trying to cool down a hot room is significantly less efficient and more costly than getting the temperature right from the beginning.

3. Motivating employees to be engaged

Although connected solutions and improved product design processes will yield energy efficiency improvements, it’s truly the employees who will make it happen. The key to employee engagement is helping employees understand that their individual actions are very relevant and that they are a valuable part of helping businesses meet their energy efficiency commitments.

Tracking employee activity and measuring progress is also critical to success. Ongoing measurement of employee action against business goals will help show value and progress. One way organizations can do this is by instituting a system where employees can self-report progress in terms of personal actions. Businesses can then track and monitor improvements in energy efficiency, waste reduction and other facets of employee engagement. This can be challenging for large enterprises as personal actions often vary from site to site, however, if the business can create a two-way conversation between what’s happening locally and then aggregate it at an enterprise level, it will be able to show the full context regarding how local contributions are supporting energy efficiency goals.

Finding the largest energy gains

By combining traditional operational strategies with creative approaches to improving energy efficiency, companies will find the quickest path to the largest gains. The combination of product design, connectivity and employee engagement can invigorate teams and work to embed the energy efficiency conversation across multiple business functions and locations. With these in place, businesses can not only gain clarity on how to reach greenhouse gas emissions targets, but create standard processes to improve energy efficiency and ultimately make a difference.

Image credit: Pexels

W. Scott Tew is Executive Director of the Center for Energy Efficiency & Sustainability at Ingersoll Rand.