Search

By Zach Bernstein

Farsighted business leaders already implement sustainability initiatives and operate social enterprises. But protecting their businesses and the public from others’ unfair corporate practices takes more than voluntary standards. We need laws and regulations that vigorously support smart long-term decisions; laws that capture the all-in costs of social and environmental externalities.

Legislators need to know that business leaders support pragmatic policies like these to make our economy resilient, healthy and workable -- sustainable in the largest sense.

Support meaningful chemical safety reform

The House recently voted 403-12 to pass a bill updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s chemical regulatory law, which has not been updated since its passage in 1976. The new bill follows years of back-and-forth between House and Senate negotiators and is a notable compromise between earlier bills in both houses. The Senate was set to take up the legislation until Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) placed a hold on it, arguing he needed more time to fully consider it. A vote is still expected sometime in June; President Obama is expected to sign the bill.

What’s at stake

TSCA has been disastrously remiss at testing toxic chemicals; about 62,000 chemicals were already on the market when TSCA was passed, and were “grandfathered” in without any safety testing. This bill would start to change that but does not provide the needed level of reform. It would expand the EPA’s authority to test more chemicals but would set an unnecessarily slower testing pace. Worse, states would be prohibited from regulating chemicals while the EPA was still testing them, which could leave blocking toxic chemicals in limbo for up to three years.

The American Sustainable Business Council and its members have expressed concern about the bill and called for stronger testing and transparency measures.

What you can do

True reform requires that transparency, safety, and innovation be supported in federal law. While this bill is currently on track to pass, it’s only a start. Efforts at the state level continue, and more businesses are responding to increased customer demand for safer chemicals. Business leaders’ views matter; support even stronger chemical reform by joining the Companies for Safer Chemicals Coalition.

Support raising the minimum wage

The Washington, D.C. City Council recently passed a minimum wage increase that would give the capital city one of the highest wage floors in the country. Under current legislation, D.C.’s minimum wage would increase gradually over time, reaching $15 by 2020, after which it would be indexed to inflation.

A previous proposal would have raised the minimum wage for tipped workers to $7.50 an hour; the new law would raise it to $5.55 an hour, and it also would be indexed to inflation. (The “tipped wage” assumes supplements from customer tips; if a server does not receive the normal minimum wage of $15 through the tipped wage plus tips, the employer would have to make up the difference.)  Efforts are also underway to put on the November ballot a measure that would increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all workers, tipped or otherwise.

What’s at stake

The federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised since 2009 -- and is actually worth less now than it was in 1968 when adjusted for inflation. States are moving to make up the gap; in 2015, 29 states and Washington, D.C. had wage floors higher than the federal level. While critics predictably argue these additional costs burden businesses, research has found that minimum wage increases have not led to major changes in unemployment. Workers with more disposable income spend it with local businesses, and are less likely to seek better-paying jobs elsewhere, forcing firms to spend money on replacement hiring and training.

What you can do

Raising the federal minimum wage would help worker compensation keep pace with the actual costs of goods and services, boost consumer spending nationwide, and free up our tax dollars currently used on public assistance for full-time workers whose employers take profits at the expense of a living wage. You can show your support for a minimum wage increase by joining Business for a Fair Minimum Wage.

Support retiring student debt for new farmers

Last month, ASBC member Clif Bar was featured in an article in MarketWatch, discussing the need for legislation to reduce student debt burdens for new farmers. “Farming is a tough business,” said Matthew Dillon, Clif Bar’s director of agricultural policy and programs. “It’s a lot of risk and if we can help early on in lowering the entry fee in farming by creating some debt forgiveness, all the better.” The bill under discussion, the Young Farmer Success Act, would allow farmers to have the balance of their student loan debt wiped away after 10 years of payments.

What’s at stake

Agriculture is obviously essential for our food supply and an education is increasingly needed for success, but farming is becoming an unfeasible career due to young farmers’ crippling college debt. According to survey data from the National Young Farmers Coalition, more than half of their members either delayed their farming career or quit farming because of student loan issues. With American farmers growing older, the need for more and younger farmers is crucial to avoid threats to food security, a major problem faced by food manufacturers like Clif Bar. By addressing the student debt burden, this bill could remove a major barrier to younger farmers starting careers in agriculture.

What You Can Do

Legislation easing new farmers’ path to entry into agriculture is crucial for our food security -- and for the growth of numerous businesses nationwide. Show your support for the Young Farmer Success Act.

Image credit: Flickr/The All-Nite Photo

Zach Bernstein is Manager of Research and Social Media for the American Sustainable Business Council.

By Elizabeth Hardee

Companies all over the world are now using carbon offsets to meet at least a portion of their greenhouse gas reduction goals. There are many reasons these corporate entities decide to engage in the carbon offset market — with some going so far as to commit to 100 percent climate neutrality or being 100 percent renewable — but for those unfamiliar with the workings of environmental markets, a basic primer may prove useful in understanding the appeal of purchasing offsets.

What is an offset?

A carbon credit, or offset, at its most basic level, is an instrument generated when one metric ton of carbon dioxide is avoided, sequestered or removed somewhere in the world. This can happen in a variety of ways, from reforesting land, to destroying methane released by landfills and dairies, to switching from a high-carbon fuel source to a low-carbon source.

Who uses offsets?

Offsets are used by corporations, nonprofits, universities and municipalities — essentially, any entity that wishes to reduce (or prevent an increase in) its emissions. Offsets are most widely used by companies that have set emissions reduction targets, and they have become an increasingly popular way to address indirect emissions: those resulting from actions over which the entity has no direct control (i.e. supplier emissions or product usage by consumers).

Ecosystem Marketplace reports that the typical offset buyer has a disproportionately large indirect emissions obligation — about 35 times that of a company that doesn’t purchase offsets. However, these companies also typically do more to address the emissions they can control than companies with no offsetting program, which provides evidence that offsetting programs themselves are generally indicative of broader carbon reduction strategies.

How is an offset created?

An offset credit begins as an emission reduction quantified against a baseline scenario (a.k.a. “business as usual”). Calculation methodologies, known in the carbon industry as protocols, are developed via a process of scientific and mathematic formulation, which is subject to intensive peer review and public comment by standards organizations. The Climate Trust, and other quality offset providers, work with the most well-respected standards organizations in the U.S., including Climate Action Reserve, Verified Carbon Standard, California Air Resources Board and American Carbon Registry.

Once quantified, offsets must be verified by an accredited third-party verifier before they may be transacted. Verification includes thorough review of a project’s monitored data, and often a visit to the project itself.

What are the benefits of offset projects?

The carbon reduction benefits of offset projects are significant. Ecosystem Marketplace has tracked carbon markets around the world since 2007 and estimates that the total carbon reductions from offset projects worldwide are just under 1 billion tons. According to the EPA, this is enough to offset the emissions from 263 coal-fired power plants for one year, or to plant over 25 billion trees.

Since 2013 alone, California’s cap and trade program, has successfully offset over 39 million tons of greenhouse gases using projects that improve the management of forests, avoid the release of methane, and destroy ozone-depleting substances (equivalent to roughly 1 billion trees planted).

Additionally, carbon offset projects have benefits far beyond their greenhouse gas reductions; referred to as co-benefits. Benefits from projects on forested lands include improved water quality and biodiversity, while livestock digester projects avoid the release of methane from manure lagoons, and may provide an additional revenue stream from the sale of biogas—an effective source of energy, and a byproduct of these systems. Carbon projects can help to finance everything from conservation of land, to more sustainable agricultural practices, to distribution of cleaner cookstoves in developing countries.

Corporations are also reaping the benefits by becoming more sustainable. In September 2014, more than a thousand companies signed up for the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition. The coalition’s goals include expanding the use of effective carbon pricing policies in order to maintain competitiveness, create jobs, encourage innovation, and deliver a meaningful reduction in emissions. According to Environmental Finance, a recent study looked at a sample of 1,700 leading international firms and found that money aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions saw an internal rate of return of 27%—a clear indication that those investments are paying off.

Do offsets let polluters off the hook?

No. The underlying principle behind quality offset projects is called additionality — if a change in practice or a carbon reduction would have happened regardless -- due to regulation or in the course of business as usual -- no offset is created. In this way, carbon markets ensure they are incentivizing, rather than simply rewarding, practices that reduce carbon.

Companies that produce high volumes of carbon emissions are by-and-large under no obligation to reduce those emissions or to pay for their release; carbon “compliance” markets created via regulation, have in some cases been built to address this. In a compliance market, companies are required to turn in allowances that reflect their emissions for the year, and can typically use offsets produced in non-covered (or non-regulated) sectors to meet some portion of this obligation — incentivizing the creation of more carbon offset projects.

Now that we’ve established a basic definition of offsets, and an understanding of environmental markets has been built, we can dive into the key factors to consider when actually purchasing offsets. Keep an eye out for these details in a future post on TriplePundit.

Image credit: Flickr/Climate and Ecosystems Change Adaptation Research University Network

Elizabeth Hardee is the Senior Analyst for The Climate Trust.

By Lauren Blickley

For the travel industry, the balance between promoting a natural resource and contributing to over-utilization is a difficult chord to strike. From snowmobiling in Yellowstone, to trekking to Machu Picchu, mass tourism is leaving behind a lasting – and ailing – legacy. Even locales like Mt. Everest are not immune. Despite its extreme remoteness, thousands of pounds of rubbish, debris, and even human excrement scar the peak’s harsh and isolated landscape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-edQbCXSVZA

While corporate conglomerates such as Etsy and Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream may at first seem far removed from the troubles of travel, these companies are part of a growing international trend that promotes businesses as “forces of good." Known as Certified B Corps, this new spin on the way businesses operate could very well be the answer to sustainable travel.

The idea of Certified B Corps – utilizing business to solve environmental and social issues – was first conceived in 2006. Today, the number of Certified B Corps has surpassed 1,700 companies spread across 50 countries. Certified B Corps must undergo a rigorous, third-party evaluation and meet certain standards with regards to the environment, employees, transparency and suppliers. Although less than 1 percent of Certified B Corps are considered to fall within the travel/leisure category, adopting the B Corp model is a move that tour companies – from kayak adventures to wine tasting - are increasingly beginning to embrace.

Tour companies challenge the status quo

On the island of Maui, Hawaii, where ocean-based tourism generates millions of dollars in annual revenue, the boutique adventure company Hawaiian Paddle Sports jumped headfirst into B Corp territory. The company recently became the first B Corp on Maui and only the seventh in the State of Hawaii, not to mention the only Hawaii-based B Corp that is a tour company.

Specializing in private paddling tours, Hawaiian Paddle Sports prides itself in offering guests a unique and authentic experience – one that foregoes the masses in favor of intimate connections and environmental sustainability. Founder Tim Lara, a champion outrigger canoe paddler and fixture in Maui’s nonprofit community, was inspired to launch Hawaiian Paddle Sports after working for years as an ocean guide and surf instructor with many of Maui’s tour companies.

Determined to build a company that went beyond just profiting from the ocean, Lara developed Hawaiian Paddle Sports as a way to create a lasting legacy of ocean stewardship. Tours are conducted in a way so as to minimize impacts to wildlife (meaning no touching the sea turtles!), mini-beach cleanups are conducted before each tour, and single-use plastics have been eliminated from the company's waste stream.

HPS has also launched a monthly community give-back program. Known as Malama Maui ("to care for Maui"), HPS employees volunteer one day each month with a local nonprofit -- whether it's pulling invasive weeds or providing surf lessons to underprivileged youth. And in an industry where tour guides can be severely overworked and underpaid, Hawaiian Paddle Sports provides continuing education, training and team-building opportunities for its employees.

Three thousand miles away, off the coast of California, Channel Islands Outfitters is forging a similar path. A B Corp since 2013, Channel Islands Outfitters combines ocean adventure with environmental change. It’s a company with a mission statement that doesn’t even mention profits and a business model that's instead grounded in saving the ocean.

The company even went so far as to do away with its sale of hundreds of plastic kayaks each year, opting instead to form Adventure Co-OP, a community-based system of sharing paddle sports equipment. Why all this effort to be a leader in saving the ocean? In the company's words, “We cannot in good conscience … stand by and watch anymore”.

A solution for travel, a solution for the planet

Of course changing the trajectory of the travel industry does not rest on the shoulders of tour operators alone. Many have suggested that it is a three pronged approach, with governments, tour operators and tourists themselves each taking on roles and responsibilities. Yet in the absence of government oversight, difficulties in defining sustainable travel standards, and failure to regulate potentially misleading terms such as “eco-tour," much of the burden inadvertently falls to those in the industry.

Ultimately, what the travel industry needs are companies who will revolutionize the way we travel – from how we reach our destinations, to our outlooks and experiences upon arrival. If Certified B Corps can fundamentally change the world of business, then it should be no stretch of the imagination that they can also redefine global tourism. And who knows, maybe the answer to saving this planet will come down to the simple act of snorkeling on vacation.

Image credit: Hawaiian Paddle Sport

Lauren Blickley is a professional outreach and communications specialist, environmental scientist, and writer. Founder of Swell Consulting, her work focuses on helping environmental nonprofits and businesses effectively communicate their message. Lauren holds a bachelor's degree in marine science/biology and a master's in environmental science and management from the Bren School at UC Santa Barbara. Her “free time” is spent indulging in her seashell obsession and traveling to far flung lands with her husband, always in search of perfect waves and the next great story.

By Chris Miller

Social entrepreneurship and its commercial counterpart are much more alike than different. In fact, some experts have concluded that all entrepreneurship is actually social. Without a doubt, launching a startup of any kind requires a herculean effort to scale and sustain. Nonetheless, three key differences make business planning for a social enterprise even more difficult.

By definition, social enterprises attempt to generate revenue through selling products or services in order to reinvest that income into their overarching missions. While it’s certainly ideal for an enterprise to have a “mission-aligned” business, the reality is that the business’s specific industry or vertical may or may not have anything to do with the mission itself. Just like their commercial counterparts, social entrepreneurs need to investigate the specific trends, demographics, geography and more to understand the competitive landscape.

However, on the social side, this requires market analyses of the mission space — usually consisting of nonprofit social service agencies serving a similar population or intervention — as well as the industry vertical in which the social enterprise is operating. As if that weren’t a high enough bar to overcome, social entrepreneurs are also confronted with the need to provide a mechanism by which the enterprise’s impact can be clearly measured.

It’s the combination of all three analyses that make social entrepreneurship so much more difficult. The task is far from impossible, however, and startups around the world succeed every day by utilizing the following three tools of the trade:

1. “Mission-market” analysis: Stemming from the primary intention of the social enterprise to positively impact a social or environmental issue, early-stage social entrepreneurs have an obligation to investigate the competitive landscape of three kinds of businesses: nonprofit, for-profit and hybrid. Regardless of where the competition might come from, the social enterprise must provide a case for how its intervention is more effective, efficient, scalable, replicable and economical than alternative solutions.


2. “Industry-market” analysis: Given that a necessary condition of a social enterprise is a defensible business model that attempts to generate the revenue necessary to sustain the social or environmental impact, a traditional industry analysis for any product or service is also needed. While “excess revenue over expenses” is welcomed by any social enterprise, it's more complicated in the world of social entrepreneurship because creating financial profits for our investors is never the primary objective. Despite prioritizing the impact for stakeholders over financial returns for shareholders — or, maybe, precisely because of it — social entrepreneurs should be expected to have a depth of knowledge about any competitor operating a profitable model selling similar products or services.


3. Impact measurement plan (social return on investment): While traditional commercial startups are increasingly asked to provide some level of transparency regarding the social and environmental impacts of their primary pursuit of profit, all social enterprises are required to do so from the outset. Despite the fact that “social return on investment” is more complicated to define than traditional ROI, its demonstration is the social entrepreneurs’ most important — and difficult — job of all.

Social entrepreneurs clearly face an uphill battle, but they do have one competitive advantage: They know what today’s consumers are looking for and have a plan for providing it.

What consumers want from today’s entrepreneurs

Regardless of whether a business technically qualifies as a social enterprise, consumers need to be able to assess the business’s claims and compare the relative levels of impact. Specifically, consumers consider the following three factors in evaluating a particular company, product or service:

• Authenticity: The most reliable way to determine a pure social enterprise is to look to the genesis of the venture and seek out the founder’s underlying story. Does the enterprise hold a genuine intent to prioritize social or environmental impact at least as much as profit maximization?


• Transparency: Consumers want to know to what extent a business provides access to the information needed to substantiate claims of social or environmental impact. If social entrepreneurs can inform their audiences, they’re on the right track.


• Accountability: Consumers also want to know to what extent a business provides a clear and measurable way of verifying its claims of social or environmental impact over time. The impact measurement plan and SROI should address this concern.

Now that we’re beginning to understand how important authenticity, transparency and accountability are to consumers, the social entrepreneurs’ task is slowly becoming more manageable. Building a startup of any kind is still among the most difficult jobs in the world. Nonetheless, we can all rest assured in knowing that it’s also among the most noble — and by almost all accounts, well worth the challenge.

Image credit: Pexels

Chris Miller is the founder and CEO of internationally renowned social entrepreneurship incubator and accelerator The Mission Center L3C. He is the co-founder of the Washington University Startup Training Lab and a senior lecturer of entrepreneurship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

by Roger Aitken - Financial advisers in the UK who are accredited with ISO 22222, the international standard for personal financial planners, have a duty and obligation to ask clients about their stance on ethical investments when giving advice. However, a high number of advisers have been found by the consumer watchdog Which? to be falsely claiming this accreditation.

Question marks have also been raised over some advisers’ qualifications from the Chartered Institute of Securities & Investments (CISI).

There are a number of specific technical issues surrounding the provision of green and ethical investment advice. Suitably qualified financial advisers with the ISO 22222 standard under their belt can deliver added value for clients who seek green and ethical investment.

One of the key questions that advisers are mandated to ask under the ISO standard, which was been developed in 2006, is: “Do you have any social, ethical, environmental or religious considerations that you would like us to take into account in our work for you?”.

However, one wonders how advisers not possessing this standard can actually be in a position to provide proper advice. Furthermore, falsely claiming the standard raises ethical questions of itself.

Filip Slipaczek, a North London-based chartered financial planner who recently achieved the ISO 22222 certification standard six years in a row with no room for further improvement, says: “Any misrepresentation of an adviser’s qualification is bordering on fraud. And, the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken by both the chartered body involved and the UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).”

Last year it was well documented in the press that ISO-accredited advisers could not use the term ‘ISO 22222-certified financial planner’ as the term ‘certified financial planner’ had a trade mark registration in the US, although administered by the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP).

Slipaczek, who in 2008 made the headlines saying that ethical investing was “no longer within the domain of the lentil-chewing sandal-wearing lefties of the 1960s”, adds: “Notwithstanding the fact that the IFP has been taken over by the CISI, whose designations have been fraudulently claimed by other advisers, this is far more worrying in my opinion than an inter-profession spat over the term ‘certified financial planner’”.

Today, his practice sees one in three of retail clients opting for ethical and green investment products through funds.

Unbiased, a website that enables the public in the UK to locate financial advisers in their area, has apparently been listing advisers incorrectly with outdated or simply false qualifications. It might appear that this is an industry-wide issue, regardless of the source used to find an adviser.

Another financial adviser commenting on a story in trade paper FT Adviser in relation to the findings from Which? said it was “not  acceptable” that some advisers fail to update their profiles on this website and called it “misleading advertising.”

They added: “You are responsible for all forms of advertising that represents your business. And, if you don’t deal with that, then it begs the question of what other aspects of your business you might be glossing over.”

Unbiased revealed that it manually checks over 50% of some 50,000 qualifications across 24,000 individuals, but said that there is “no automated way to check some qualifications” and that not even the FCA holds such data. An Unbiased spokeswoman suggested that a “centralised verification system” was required. “This could be one for the industry as a whole to collaborate on, as it would be in everyone’s interests,” they added.

 

A tipping point is on the strategy agendas for the world’s largest cement companies, according to a new report by CDP. The study finds that of the 12 global cement companies analyzed in a US$120bn grouping, the majority of the companies’ forward-looking emissions reductions targets will expire in the next few years. This matters, because the cement sector is responsible for 5% of man-made global emissions, more than Japan or Canada. In addition, more than 50% of facilities are located in areas where water resources are stressed.

Cement producers in Europe are currently sheltered from carbon pricing, due to generous emission permit allowances. However, reform of the EU ETS (emissions trading systgem) post-2020 is likely to change this.

The COP21 Agreement calls for net zero emissions by 2050—which means that cement companies should be looking to “future-proof” their business by adopting new product and process technologies and new business models, says CDP. These include increasing the use of alternative fuel sources, implementing thermal energy efficiency measures, and using decarbonized substitute materials to a much greater degree. Currently, three of the twelve companies analyzed in the report have outlined plans for reducing their emissions in line with science-based targets.

View the executive summary of the report here.

Photo: commons.wikipedia.org

By Jeff Sutton 

A Natural Fit: Social Media & Sustainability from thinkPARALLAX on Vimeo.

Over the last decade, we have seen social media and sustainability play an increasingly important role in the way that businesses conduct and talk about themselves. Together they’ve helped push corporations to new levels of transparency, opened up avenues for greater engagement, forced organizations to rethink their role in society, and aligned individuals, businesses and communities around shared purpose.

Unfortunately, for all the common benefits, many companies still haven’t quite figured out how to put the two together effectively. This article puts it bluntly: “Brands are blowing a major opportunity to communicate their sustainability initiatives to millions of consumers with social media updates that are ‘inane, safe and saccharinely artificial in their bonhomie.’”

This study by the Pew Research Center in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation found that “clear majorities of Twitter (63 percent) and Facebook users (63 percent) now say each platform serves as a source for news about events and issues outside the realm of friends and family.” Social media has quickly taken a front seat to other, more traditional ways of receiving information – and the trend shows no sign of slowing down. If sustainability messages seek to reach specific audiences, it stands to reason that those messages should be communicated through the audiences' preferred channels.

But identifying proper channels is only one part of the equation. Organizations must then engage audiences – no short order in light of the amount of messaging vying for users’ attention. According to cio.com, Facebook’s 1.44 billion monthly active users sent out an average of 31.25 million messages every minute – and that’s only one network. That figure doesn’t even begin to account for LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Medium or any of the host of other social media apps available to users. Making sustainability messages stand out in an ocean of noise means doing more than posting links to a report PDF.

What follows are a few examples of companies that have risen above the social media fracas to effectively engage with audiences on their sustainability initiatives.

H&M

In April, H&M utilized a strong social media push to raise awareness for the brand’s sustainability programs and reduce the environmental footprint of the fast fashion industry. Using the hashtag #WorldRecycleWeek, H&M encouraged customers to “close the loop in fashion” by recycling unwanted clothes at their stores.

While many people have questioned the fast fashion giant’s agenda or decried it as corporate greenwashing, leveraging the power of social media provided H&M the platform to engage with these critics and respond publicly to through exposure and awareness of their sustainability efforts. No matter what you thought, if you interacted with the brand at all, it was there, in your face, and difficult not to notice.

The social media rollout surrounding #WorldRecycleWeek is especially noteworthy in the way that it catered directly to audiences and demographics that might not normally spend much time thinking about issues of sustainability. Rather than using social media to call out facts and data about the environmental ills of non-recycled clothing (very little of which would likely have resonated with an average fast-fashion consumer), an online music video by musician M.I.A. urging H&M’s customers to “rewear it” and be part of H&M’s sustainability initiative. Through their efforts, H&M used social media to “dress up” its sustainability story.

Toms

Outside the realm of environmental sustainability, Toms shoes regularly uses social media to promote initiatives in the arena of social good. Once a year, Toms promotes One Day Without Shoes using the hashtag #withoutshoes on social media to raise awareness about children's health. Last year, they gave shoes to over 27,000 children based on the results of the one-day campaign.

As noted in the video that accompanies this article, consistency is a key part of building a corporate social responsibility (CSR) message that resonates, and Toms provides a compelling example of how effective this can be. Last year marked the ninth year that Toms has run the campaign – and it's already planning for 2017. This consistency demonstrates that the brand is dedicated to their initiative for the long term. And, more importantly, it gives the campaign a chance to grow. Next year will likely be bigger than ever.

SAP

Outside the realm of consumer-facing brands, the software corporation SAP has also found success in communicating its sustainability efforts through social media. The company created its own separate Twitter account (@sap4good) for its sustainability and corporate responsibility initiatives and posts enough compelling content to gain over 15,000 followers. Much of the company's success rests in the fact that SAP posts more than what it is doing for sustainability on its own end; it also utilizes social media by engaging with users, collaborating with peers and sharing interesting posts from other organizations – creating a truly social community.

As sustainability professionals, we regularly have the opportunity to interact with organizations that are doing amazing things to benefit our planet. Some of these organizations have become quite adept at interweaving sustainability initiatives into their social media – and they’ve begun to reap the benefits. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen examples of initiatives that go largely unnoticed, simply because they aren’t communicated effectively.

For many of these corporations, the challenge is understanding how to effectively engage their audiences on these topics using language and media that may be foreign to the boardroom. For brands and marketers, social media channels have been a mainstay for years, but many corporate communications and sustainability teams have been much slower to adapt. Which is a shame, because social media is more than just a marketing tool, it’s a powerful platform for driving engagement on critical issues with your core audiences (and ones that historically may have been unheard). In today’s world, if you're not talking about these issues on the channels where your audience lives, the message may be interpreted that they aren't important enough to discuss.

There is no debating that both social media and sustainability have proven to be a tremendous force for positive change. Now as sustainability practitioners, we just have to find the creativity and desire to learn how to use them together.

Jeff Sutton is the Vice President of thinkPARALLAX, a sustainability communications agency committed to building brands with purpose. Their work sits at the intersection of business strategy, corporate responsibility, and communication. Creating communication strategies, campaigns, and stories that influence behavior and drive positive change in the world and greater business community.

Image credit: Unsplash

By Dr. Alan Epstein

Global economic growth is adding millions of people annually to the world’s middle class, posing one of the most exciting – but challenging – opportunities to sustainable urbanization.

As growth in the middle class continues to expand, history tells us they will increase consumption of goods and services, traveling more for business and pleasure. Consider, for example, that the number of commercial aircraft is projected to significantly increase over the next 15 years, from about 26,000 today to approximately 46,000 by 2030.

Increased air travel will deliver untold benefits as more people conduct business and connect with other cultures far from home. But this increase in travel highlights the need to make air travel more sustainable.

At United Technologies, we are inspired by challenges like these because we pride ourselves on doing big things that others cannot. Around the world, our engineers, scientists and other professionals invent new and better ways to keep people safe, comfortable, productive and on the move – all in a more sustainable way.

Geared Turbofan Engine Technology: A revolution in commercial aviation

Consider air travel. Two decades ago, UTC’s Pratt & Whitney business envisioned a design change that would revolutionize the jet engine. By adding a gear, Pratt & Whitney could create a vastly more efficient and sustainable engine to power the world’s commercial aircraft.

While simple in concept, the creation of a working Geared Turbofan engine took ingenuity and talent to develop something this complex. Now 20 years and $10 billion later, this innovation is reshaping the commercial aviation industry, delivering real benefits for airline operators, travelers and the environment immediately on entry into service.

Pratt & Whitney’s new PurePower engine with Geared Turbofan technology – which entered service earlier this year – lowers fuel consumption by 16 percent, while simultaneously cutting regulated emissions by 50 percent. The engine’s annual fuel savings will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 3,600 metric tons per aircraft every year.

In addition to the environmental benefits, the engine also delivers a 75 percent reduction in overall noise footprint. That means less noise pollution in communities surrounding airports. How much less? At takeoff, about 500,000 fewer people will be able to hear a Geared Turbofan engine-powered airplane, compared to a conventional aircraft at the same airport. A quieter engine means a more enjoyable experience for people on the ground and passengers in the sky.

Green aviation starts here

The Geared Turbofan engine is the future of sustainable aviation. To date, Pratt & Whitney has logged more than 7,000 orders for the new engine, an unprecedented number. The engine is currently in service in Germany and India, and we expect it will be flying on commercial planes in the North and South America in the near future.

Innovation of this magnitude isn’t fast or easy. But it is possible and the environmental benefits are enormous. At UTC, we live for game-changing innovation and this “green engine” truly changes everything.

Image credit: Pixabay

Dr. Alan H. Epstein is vice president of Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp. Dr. Epstein is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in aeronautics and astronautics.

When we think of “sustainability” at a high level, the usual suspects are communities and companies based in cities such as San Francisco, Portland and Brooklyn. As we glean information both from conventional news sites and blogs focusing on environmental awareness and activism, it is easy to believe that leadership on sustainable development is only happening in a few select, progressive regions.

But the stubborn fact is that innovation and the scaling-up of more sustainable business solutions are sprouting up all across the U.S. And one such city is Las Vegas, known more for its entertainment, gaming industry and debauchery than mundane activities like conservation and clean technology.

What is creating excitement is that the ideas related to sustainable development within this rapidly growing city of 600,000 are not necessary staying in Vegas. Sin City is becoming recognized as an emerging hub for thought leadership when it comes to new and creative solutions related to responsible and sustainable business. To learn more, TriplePundit spoke by telephone with Cindy Ortega, senior vice president and chief sustainability officer of MGM Resorts International, while she was working from her Las Vegas office.

Before we even discussed the impact that MGM and Las Vegas have had on corporate responsibility and sustainable business, we discussed the concept of thought leadership. After all, many professionals describe themselves as “thought leaders,” and people understandably prefer that term over “expert” or “authority.” So we asked Ortega what that term even means in the first place. As she put it, such a definition has three critical components.

“First, thought leadership must be defined by an important question or an important problem,” Ortega told us. “Whatever the person is an expert in, the concept must be meaningful on a large scale for society. I think that a person who can solve a problem like algebra, for example, is a smart person — but that same person, to really be a thought leader, has got to be be able to solve a bigger and more complicated equation.”

One instance in which MGM is applying thought leadership within its Las Vegas operations is its work on water scarcity. It is no secret that Las Vegas has long confronted a growing water crisis. Most hospitality companies, however, have had a fairly tepid response (as in, reuse your towels and linens) to this problem, which stretches far beyond parched Nevada and California. MGM took its commitment to water conservation a step further by developing a plan to reduce its dependence on nearby Lake Mead while converting more lawns to artificial turf or drought-resistant landscaping — saving millions of gallons of water annually.

Second, Ortega insisted that thought leaders have shown proven results rather than limiting themselves to what many would agree is the most educated and reasoned opinion. “Look, to say he or she is an educated person is, deservedly, a way to describe someone who is really smart about something. But a thought leader is one who works well with others to create road maps and solutions that can be implemented,” she said. “And in taking action, thought leaders build a track record of proven results. I may have a great idea about a global warming problem, but unless I have that track record, I don’t think I would qualify as a climate change thought leader.”

Take the case of MGM’s massive solar array atop its Mandalay Bay resort. The gut reaction would be that, naturally, with all of the company’s rooftops in southern Nevada, MGM should just slap solar panels on all of its properties, use less conventional energy and then be done with it. But it is not that simple. Most companies may have the vision, but not the capacity, to embark on such a project. To that end, MGM partnered with NRG Energy, which funded, built, and now owns and operates the installation. MGM had some experience with the construction of a co-generation plant at its huge City Center complex on the Strip and has several LEED certifications under its belt. But its quest to become a sustainable company is proving to be a long journey — and it needs the cooperation of companies such as NRG, and the buy-in of municipal leaders, to turn its vision into action.

Finally, Ortega explained that thought leadership needs to extend far beyond one’s cubicle or corner office. It is one thing to have a role in transforming the operations of a company, but can that idea scale and apply to other industries and sectors?

“Even if MGM were able to solve the solar problem in Las Vegas, and even though we navigated through the minefields that prevented projects like the one in Mandalay Bay from succeeding, here’s the fact: Had we kept it to ourselves, that would have eliminated any idea that we could describe ourselves as thought leaders. You have to work outside your immediate sphere. That means you and your ideas must have impact and influence others, whether they are individuals or entire companies.” – Cindy Ortega of MGM

So, we have made a stronger case that thought leadership in sustainability is brewing in Las Vegas. Nevertheless, we asked Ortega how she addresses that uncomfortable situation when she is asked if sustainable business and Sin City can really be mentioned in the same sentence.

“The leaders in his community have long been cognizant of sustainability, especially when it comes to water,” Ortega replied. “What I see from a community standpoint are visionaries such as Tom Perrigo [Las Vegas’ chief sustainability officer]. This city is doing some amazing things, from our current mayor to our company’s CEO and his wife.” Ortega continued listing other examples, such as a Brookings Institute study espousing how net-metering benefits all consumers to the local newspaper’s aggressive push to make Nevada a more business-friendly environment for the solar power industry.

The result is that MGM, and the greater Las Vegas area, are in a unique position to become a leading laboratory for new clean-energy and smart-cities technologies. One advantage MGM has over companies of similar size is that much of its business is operated within a small area of about five or so square miles.

Contrast MGM’s presence with Walmart, which has long touted its investment in renewables and work over the past decade to make its operations leaner and greener. But Walmart’s over 5,000 stores, in addition to its corporate offices and distribution centers, are spread across the country. Even the best information-technology and monitoring systems cannot address the challenge of gauging what works for the world’s largest retailer — and ascertain what does not work well or even fails.

But MGM’s concentrated presence in Las Vegas presents not only a huge opportunity for the company, but for its business partners as well. Ortega pointed out its work with Panasonic, with which the company is developing new technology products to cope with food waste. Such cooperation is mutually beneficial, as Panasonic can hold more meetings on MGM properties while MGM can buy more Panasonic products. But those ideas and technologies can spread to restaurants and hotels outside of Vegas, not only boosting Panasonic’s business, but also solving an environmental problem across the U.S. MGM is also building a similar relationship with Honeywell -- which, if successful, could help more businesses and consumers make buildings smarter and more energy efficient.

What this all boils down to is that true thought leadership brings people and organizations together. The result is a movement greater than the sum of its parts, one far more impactful than if all of these parts were only contributing on an individual basis. And if companies and incomes are going to continue to grow while mitigating our effect on the planet and its people, then more of us who talk about sustainability need to observe, learn from and work with the likes of MGM. Such cooperation growing out of thought leadership is what is needed if we as a society are going to turn talk, of which there is plenty, into action — of which more is still sorely needed.

Image credit: MGM Resorts International

Most of us wouldn’t think twice about recycling unusable items. Ushering that defunct computer or broken toaster toward a business that can break it down for resalable parts has become a routine step in many communities, especially those with curbside pickup.

But how many of us make the same effort when it comes to donating old but perfectly good clothes, textiles and household products to charities and thrift stores?

More than half of us do, says the global thrift retailer Savers. According to a survey it conducted for its 2016 State of Reuse Report, 59 percent of North Americans take the time to donate their reusable items to thrift stores or charities -- and many do so to make sure their much-loved belongings go to good use.

Savers, also known in Canada and parts of the U.S. as Value Village, conducted the online survey in April of this year. A total of 3,094 respondents (1,634 in the U.S. and 1,463 in Canada) weighed-in on how and why they donate their reusable household and personal goods.

One of the aims of the survey, said Ken Alterman, president and CEO of Savers, was to determine North Americans' perceptions about their own clothing “footprints” and the role that thrift stores and charities play when people decide it's time to part with belongings. Did they bring those items to organizations that could repurpose their unwanted clothing and household goods, or did they throw them away? If they tossed them out, were there reasons why?

Not surprisingly, the survey found that many people feel they have too much stuff sitting in closets and rooms.  But their perception of just how much of those goods they take to the landfill revealed an interesting fact about North American habits: We vastly underestimate how much clothing we throw out each year and often aren’t aware of how much we own -- and how much impact our habits can have on the environment.

U.S. respondents said they ditched on average about 47 pounds of belongings a year. In fact, the nonprofit trade association SMART (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles) found that the average amount of material U.S. consumers throw out is closer to 81 pounds per year – almost twice the amount that respondents reported.

Equally revealing was the fact that 54 percent of those respondents tossed discards in the landfill because they didn’t think donation centers would take them. Another 25 percent said convenience motivated their decision. Seventeen percent said they weren’t sure what to do with their pre-loved items.

In many cases, the survey found, consumers expressed confusion about what they could and couldn’t donate. For example, 51 percent said they knew many textiles could be reused or recycled. But 61 percent were misinformed about what donation centers would and would not accept. Another 21 percent admitted they either didn’t know or were unsure.

Altruism, or the idea that donating their belongings would help someone else, played a large part in why respondents donated clothing and other items. Forty-two percent of Americans and Canadians said knowing that their donations would help a nonprofit program or agency would prompt them to donate more.

Those statistics also align with the way consumers usually get rid of reusable items, according to the survey. Sixty-one percent said they chose to donate to thrift stores that were associated with a charity, and another 42 percent preferred to give to a community shelter or other nonprofit that benefited the local community. Charitable contributions and the ability to contribute their valuable belongings to the betterment of others are important driving forces when it comes to what people do with unused property.

At the same time, 35 percent said it was simply convenient to donate their goods. The often-touted perk of receiving a tax write-off was also a low priority for respondents.

And while very few respondents said they specifically donated in order to keep things out of the landfill (13 percent in the U.S. and 15 percent in Canada), a whopping 79 percent said they would pick a reused outfit over a brand-new one if it would cut down on environmental impact.  Baby boomers were particularly supportive of that idea, with 75 percent of boomer respondents affirming that they would choose a pre-used item over a new one if it were good for Mother Nature.

Education, the report noted, was at the heart of consumer trends. Irrespective of the difference between people’s purchasing and donating habits, the report found that most respondents agreed that educating consumers about the environmental and community benefits of donating and reusing pre-owned items was key to cutting down on waste.

“A promising finding of the survey was that nearly all respondents unanimously agreed that the concepts of reuse should be taught in schools to increase sustainability habits. Ninety-four percent of respondents endorsed this idea. Savers sees these misconceptions as an opportunity for the public and private sectors to work together to educate consumers and develop innovative solutions that promote and encourage reuse,” the retailer concluded in its report.

Images: Flickr/Mike Mozart; Flickr/Catiemagee