Search

The ongoing release of the WikiLeaks files continue to be a gift that keeps on giving, especially if you resent the cozy relationship between big business and government. A set of cables released last month describes a 2009 visit between U.S. government officials and Nestlé executives at the company’s global headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland. It confirms what was already largely confirmed by science, government and business leaders: The global economy is on a collision course with water scarcity.

Whether this revelation will rank with the tobacco company’s sabotage of its own research of the impacts smoking has on public health, or ExxonMobil’s past research on climate change that it eventually suppressed, remains to be seen. But Nestlé’s frank discussion about the world’s ongoing water crisis several years ago hardly portrays the company as model corporate citizen.

Nestlé has long engendered its fair share of controversy, from its role in the baby formula scandal in Africa in the 1970s to its American operations’ dubious agreements to source groundwater for its lucrative bottled water brands. The company, to blunt such criticism, will point to progress it has made on the sustainability front, from its cage-free egg-sourcing commitments to improvements in animal welfare.

And some of those commitments could be traced to this particular report released by WikiLeaks. What reads at first as a long-term economic analysis during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis morphs into a gloomy assessment of the water economy. “A calorie of meat requires 10 times as much water to produce as a calorie of food crops,” a Nestlé analyst suggested, “As the world's growing middle classes eat more meat, the earth's water resources will be dangerously squeezed.”

The report then continues to give a damning assessment of the American diet. Claiming that the average U.S. daily consumption of 3,600 calories per person is largely derived from meat products, Herbert Oberhaensli, Nestlé’s then-vice president of economics and international relations (now retired and a part-time advisor to the company’s board of directors), said global water supplies would be “exhausted” if the world’s population reached 6 billion people — a number reached in 2000.

Many of these threats related to water depletion, Oberhaensli went on, stem from subsidies that allow for the growing of crops in arid reasons like California and the “mis-pricing” of water.

But the gargantuan American diet was not solely to blame. The push to develop biofuels, then a central part of the European Union’s drive to shift toward clean-energy technologies, also contributed to the world’s growing water shortages. Nestlé estimated that 1,000 liters (264 gallons) of water were needed to produce 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of ethanol. As a result of the growing middle class’s demands for more meat, Oberhaensli believed the world would confront a 30 percent shortfall of grain production by 2025.

The company, therefore, suggested a four-pronged approach toward combatting this emerging water crisis: a virtual market of water that would allow for this precious resource to be sold across borders; the elimination of subsides for biofuels; the acceptance of genetically modified crops (GMOs) into the global food industry’s supply chain; and the liberalization of agricultural trade.

With that, Nestlé execs told U.S. government officials that the company wanted to “play a useful public role in the global debate on the environment.” But there was one caveat:

“The company management believes that the current under-pricing of that scarce commodity (water) will lead to huge problems. It fears that subsidies for biofuels will potentially push the price of food out of reach for the poor in some developing nations. It is strongly opposed to water price subsidies and a strong proponent of market practices. However, the firm scrupulously avoids confrontation and polemics, preferring to influence its audience discretely by example.”

Whether Nestlé leads by example is open to debate. While the company does procure some meat for its portfolio of brands, which includes Hot Pockets, Stouffer’s, Gerber, Maggi and, of course, its pet food products, Nestlé does not directly purchase livestock from suppliers — most of the meat it buys is already processed. It is easy for the company to express dismay about the potential impact of the global meat industry when such food is not the core of its business. And as for overall water consumption, the company is rather vague when it comes to what, in corporate-speak, is often called “water stewardship” policies.

It is not fair to single out Nestlé, or ravenous Americans, for the world’s emerging water crisis. Many of the issues are structural, such as outdated laws on water allotments in places like California, or the fact that water is still underpriced. And to Nestlé’s point, most of the world’s water goes toward farming, not industry or residential use.

But what this leaked document reveals is that Nestlé had the opportunity to get ahead of the curve and start a global conversation on water consumption. Instead, the company confused “non-confrontation” with leadership.

Image credit: Nestle

It is hard to think of a product more useless, and with a larger environmental impact, than bottled water — although those single-use coffee pods come pretty close. Largely popularized because of the longstanding partnership between Keurig and Green Mountain Roasters, coffee pods have surged in popularity over the past decade because of their convenience. Just about every coffee brand has a line of machines and pods, including a Starbucks machine that was hilariously parodied by Saturday Night Live.

But coffee pods pose their share of recycling challenges. Sure, you can scoop out those coffee grinds for your garden, wash out the aluminum or resin-based pods, and recycle the components. But most consumers will laugh if you suggest such an idea. In Canada, Office Max and TerraCycle launched an in-store pilot recycling project for coffee pods, and even expanded the program, but that effort is a drop in the bucket as the vast majority of pods go into landfills.

Now Nespresso, a successful coffee pod maker (and coffee disks, just to be clear) due in part to having George Clooney has a spokesman, says it is increasing its waste-diversion and recycling efforts here in the U.S.

In a widely disseminated press release, Nespresso announced it has expanded a pilot coffee-pod recycling program from 20 states to the contiguous 48 states of the U.S. In a partnership with UPS, Nespresso users can plonk their used aluminum pods into a pre-paid UPS bag, drop them off at just about any UPS pick-up location (or a local Office Depot or Staples) or have your local courier pick them up at your doorstep, and UPS will send them to one of Nespresso’s partner recycling facilities.

No word yet on what incentives will be offered to consumers that bother to ship their used coffee pods. Currently, once delivered to a recycling center, the capsules are shredded and the various materials are separated. Any coffee grounds are sifted and shipped to an industrial composting plant.

In theory, Nespresso diverts the new raw materials to companies such as TerraCycle, which either upcycle the material or churn it into new products. Participants in the program can accrue points, which can then be converted into donations for local nonprofits or schools. But the program with TerraCycle has tapped out in Canada — the company is no longer accepting new participants, and it has requested that consumers who want to rid themselves of those pods find other ways in which to recycle them.

In an email to TriplePundit, a Nespresso spokesperson described the expanded recycling effort as “the latest development in Nespresso’s sustainability strategy, in which they have prioritized recycling and creating a sustainable value chain.”

Clearly Nestlé, Nespresso’s parent company, touts such a program as part of the company’s “shared value” mission. But the reality is that if something cannot go into the blue bin, most likely that item is not going to be recycled, even if it can be picked up and shipped for free. In the case of these Nespresso pods, shared value it is Nestlé -- and the consultancies advising the company on such strategies -- the score the financial benefits, while municipalities pick up the tab for hauling and landfilling the waste.

As one TriplePundit commentator recently pointed out, Nestlé is actually in the position to use more responsible and sustainable (as in: recycled) materials. But instead, the company designed these pods and machines for maximum commercial gain — and expects a few textbooks or some donated play equipment to balance out any environmental impact. Meanwhile, Nespresso will point to other projects, such as working with farmers in South Sudan, as showing that its “EcoLaboration” works.

Not everyone is buying into Nespresso’s communications plans. The city of Hamburg, Germany, banned the use of those single-use coffee pods in government buildings earlier this year, the BBC reported. Do not be surprised as more municipalities, in trying to set an example for their citizens with it comes to sustainable behavior, follow the lead of Germany’s second largest city.

Image credit: Nespresso

Now is not the best time to be in the artificial color industry. Food companies including Mars, Nestlé USA and Kraft have either ditched, or plan to eliminate, artificial food dyes from their products. Some of the reasons include alleged links between artificial colors and health problems like hyperactivity in children.

But at a time when consumers want more transparency about the ingredients in their food, and are willing to pay a premium for a product with less ingredients, America’s largest food companies have got to reformulate their products — or risk losing that coveted shelf space due to falling sales.

One company revamping its food products is Minnesota-based General Mills. Long successful because of its popular cereals, the company has had to diversify its holdings with the purchase of brands such as Annie’s in order to stay relevant in an era in which consumer tastes are changing.

In a chess move to keep that younger, and fickle, millennial generation in its corner, General Mills has changed how its made many of its popular cereals, including its 60-year-old Trix brand. Last fall the company, made waves when it announced that the eye-popping, colorful cereal would say goodbye to the bright, but artificial, primary and neon hues in favor of more earthy tones colored by natural ingredients such as annatto, turmeric and fruit juices.

Whether artificial colors really pose any health problems or not does not matter to General Mills, as the company has to adjust to market realities. As Minneapolis Star-Tribune journalist Mike Hughlett reported this week, cereals have fallen out of favor, especially with the under-35 crowd. Cereal in the morning peaked in popularity 20 years ago, around the same time boxes of these goodies were showcased on the popular NBC sitcom Seinfeld.

But from peaking at approximately 35 percent of Americans’ daily breakfast in the 1990s, that ratio has fallen over the years to just under 27 percent. And considering that three of the five most popular cereal brands are owned by General Mills, those numbers put the future viability of the company at risk.

In addition to making its cereals more natural, General Mills has taken steps to show that it is a responsible company. The $18 billion conglomerate was one of the first in its sector to take a stand on human rights; its CEO, Kendall J. Powell, was one of several CEOs urging the U.S. government to take a stand on climate change; and the company has also made a commitment to improve its animal welfare policies.

But while General Mills has committed to GMO labelling, it has not pledged to eliminate GMOs from its supply chain, citing U.S. and international agencies that have declared such food ingredients are safe. And that stance -- no matter what the science is -- has irritated many consumers.

Earlier this week, General Mills’ social media team reminded the public about the new Trix cereal in a cute video posted on the company’s Facebook page. While the bunny scored some points, the post was overwhelmingly panned by commenters — many of whom said, in a nutshell, get rid of GMOs.

Despite all of its efforts to show that it is a more responsible and sustainable food company, General Mills’ prospects will not improve until it changes how it sources many of its raw materials. Simply labeling foods if they have GMO ingredients, as the Campbell Soup Co. announced earlier this year, will not be enough.

Image credit: General Mills 

By Suzanne Chew

While many of us are procrastinating over just what low-carbon lifestyle changes we could make, many villagers in developing nations are simply getting on with it. How? Through clean cookstoves, energy from waste, community renewables and other simple, effective choices. 

Clean cooking for moms

Lao PDR (Laos) is a beautiful country in Southeast Asia, filled with running rivers and mountains. It’s also a country where, according to the World Bank, 30 percent of the population live in poverty,

A local nonprofit, the Association for Rural Mobilization and Improvement, in collaboration with international NGOs Oxfam and SNV, is working hard to bring clean cookstoves to villages across the country. How are they doing it? By training resident artisans to manufacture these stoves using local materials, and creating networks of villager-entrepreneurs to market them all across the country.

The results have been impressive. As of mid-2015, villagers have purchased over 50,000 of these “Super Stoves.” There’s even a cute mascot and a cookbook of local recipes designed just for these stoves.

By Frank Hernandez

In an evaluation of consolidation activity, the Bridgespan Group suggested that the economic recession in 2009 should have triggered a survival instinct as charitable contributions declined -- resulting in more nonprofit mergers and a reduction in the number of nonprofits.

However, the data show that more nonprofits were created, rising by over 7 percent in the period from 2007 through 2011.  One reason for this surprising growth is contained in a new report by the Atlas of Giving, which finds that charitable giving in the United States rose by over 50 percent since 2009 to reach a record of almost $480 billion in 2015.  Since charitable giving expanded, nonprofit survival was not in jeopardy.

In 2016, the economy continues to improve – unemployment is down, the stock market is up and the charitable giving outlook appears on track to better 2015’s record level. While a positive trend in contributions is expected to continue, regional differences exist.  Falling oil prices that generate disposable income for families and corporations with high transportation costs can create uncertainty and cutbacks for firms and individuals that work in the energy industry.

In Houston where I live, the local economy is more diversified than during the 1980s when the area suffered a significant recession as the price of oil fell below $10 a barrel ($22 today). Oil prices dropped to nearly $25 per barrel in January of this year, and energy-related job losses have increased.  Many local charities are worried that the decline in the energy industry will adversely affect donations and volunteer support.  In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Sandra Miniutti, CFO for Charity Navigator, an organization that follows charities across the country, suggested that it takes about six months for an economic slowdown to affect nonprofit contributions and the second half of this year will be extremely challenging for local charities and beneficiaries.

In anticipation of declining funding, two Houston-area United Way groups agreed to merge in late February. Their merger is expected to realize efficiencies as they combine efforts and no longer compete for charitable contributions.  The decision to merge was difficult because the smaller organization had existed for over 60 years and its leadership wanted assurances that the needs of its community would continue to be addressed.  Indeed, local community donors were asked to approve the merger.  The board of directors also recognized that pride might prevent them from merging with the larger group.  In the end, “mind and heart” got aligned and the local community can expect ongoing support and services.

Successful nonprofit mergers result from the development of a shared vision that creates alignment, manages senior staff roles and responsibilities, and clarifies the combined mission. In the Houston United Way merger, the president of the smaller organization decided to step down after nineteen years heading the group.  In moving forward, the new entity expects to improve services and grow programs where the smaller organization had stalled.  Already, the new organization has guaranteed $4 million in each of the next two years to support the community served by the smaller entity.  This funding level is almost double what was projected had the organizations remained separate.

While it is too early to know if the new larger Houston area United Way will expand support, the negotiations that resulted in the merger appear to follow the recommendations outlined by the Bridgespan Group – create alignment, define roles and blend the brands. Successful mergers require collaboration that involves the board and senior staff from the onset.  Funders should also be engaged in thinking through alternatives and planning support options.

The Houston-area United Way merger represents a positive step to ensure that the local community continues to receive support and service during these uncertain times. By setting aside egos and focusing on the needs of the community, success and sustainability are more assured.  The president of the local United Way put the needs of the community first and agreed to step down to enable a more efficient and productive entity.  Although offered a consulting role in the new organization, she chose to leave so that the two organizations could more easily integrate.

Organizational leadership requires that we put aside personal interests for the good of the community and the organization. I hope that other nonprofits do similar soul-searching and consider mergers and efficiencies when faced with declining support.  The community and our beneficiaries deserve nothing less.

What do you think?

Image credit: United Way of Greater Houston via Facebook

Frank Hernandez is a doctoral student in the Program in Higher Education Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin.

By Sophie Bell-Rhone

Fracking is one of those issues that divides opinion and inflames debate with such ferocity that it can be difficult to draw any reliable conclusions. Anyone who is engaged even fleetingly by environmental and economic concerns cannot help but pick up on the controversy of this emerging drilling technique. It’s nobody’s place to tell us what to think, but a keen look at fracking from both sides of the argument can prove an eye-opener.

The fact is: Humankind has frittered away its non-renewable energy resources, and it will take a wealth of invention if we are to progress without prices or the toll on the environment getting out of hand.

Proponents of fracking -- high-volume hydraulic fracturing, to give the technique its full name – paint a picture of ‘transparent gold,' with the aggressive mining technique able to extract billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Alongside a hefty oil haul, this points to a $231 billion windfall for the U.S. economy by 2035. As well as accounting for half of U.S. energy needs, an estimated 1.6 million jobs will be created. Taken by themselves, these statistics give a rosy view of the future of fracking.

However, the very environmental short-sightedness that has brought us to the brink of an energy crisis is exactly the kind of warning we should pay heed to before pursuing an aggressive new mining technique.

Fracking involves drilling deep into the ground and bombarding the sedimentary rock below with high volumes of water in order to dislodge gas or oil. Predictably, such an approach is not kind on nature: 7 million gallons of water may be used for each well, with over 30 percent of that water lost. Groundwater can become contaminated, greenhouse gas emissions are claimed to be higher than conventional techniques, and pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium and lead (among others) are released into the ecosystem. Most dramatically, the threat of earthquakes seems to rise with the use of fracking – there were 659 earthquakes in the U.S. with a magnitude greater than 3 in 2014, more than six times the total of the four preceding years combined.

This would make for shocking reading even in light of the economic benefits outlined above. But when those figures are offset by the fact that each well can see up to a 90 percent drop in its production in the first year, or that the fracking industry needs to make at least double the price per barrel of regular oil in order to break even, the outrage expressed by the anti-fracking movement feels increasingly justified.

To make up your mind for yourself, run your eyes over this new infographic, which outlines the statistics both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the further development of the fracking industry.

Image credit: Flickr/NPCA Photos

Infographic courtesy of 911Metallurgist

Sophie Bell-Rhone is digital PR lead for NeoMam Studios, a content marketing agency.

By Andy Cummings

According to a 2015 Cone Communications Global CSR study, 90 percent of global consumers are likely to switch brands to one associated with a good cause, given comparable price and quality.

Consumers overwhelmingly want corporate social responsibility (CSR), and corporations realize that it is imperative; this is nothing new. We see this first-hand at Versaic, where we work side-by-side with a diverse cross-section of the Fortune 1000 in a wide range of industries, from pharmaceuticals, hospitality and healthcare to retail, transportation and energy. An emerging trend we have noticed working with these leading corporations carrying out philanthropic giving programs is a desire to get more strategic in their giving and rally their company around their philanthropic goal.

The problem? Corporations across the board are struggling to figure out how exactly to be more strategic in their giving. However, working with brands who are able to do so successfully, we have gained a wealth of insight and best practices. The following steps will help you as your corporation looks to get more strategic in your philanthropic giving:

1. Create a strategic focus area

In order to go from strategy to impact you need a plan and a partner. Starwood Hotels and Resorts started by identifying five social responsibility focus areas: workplace readiness, human rights, conservation, disaster relief and community vitality.

Starwood then engaged with Partner TRI to make a mindset shift from acting as a ‘funder’ to acting as an ‘investor’ looking for the highest human gain for the available dollars. By creating a strategic results framework first, Starwood was able to link everything in their giving programs back to results

2. Figure out the needs of communities in which you service

It is not enough to just write a check. In order to achieve impact, you need to research the needs of the communities in which you service.

USAA, the USAA Federal Savings Bank and the USAA Foundation help the national military community and the communities where USAA employees live and work. Based on their chosen cause of military family resiliency, they then determined the following needs: support for military caregivers, families of the fallen and wounded, financial readiness for service members, spouses and children and fulfilling careers for veterans and military spouses.

By determining these needs and direct impact targets, USAA is able to follow through with its mission of going above for those who have gone beyond.

3. Determine what you can give: If money, how much? If product, what kind?

Waste Management is committed to enhancing communities through programs that help make them cleaner and better places to live. Local Waste Management facilities are proactive in identifying charities located in the immediate community and in many cases may have predetermined which organizations they will support that year.

It wasn’t obvious to the company's locations what they could give, but they came up with some creative ideas. One example of their product donation efforts is donating garbage disposal bins and services to fundraising events in the community.

4. Create a plan of how you will give back. Will it be grants, fundraising events etc.?

Quicken Loans has a variety of ways it gives back in the city of Detroit. Through its partnership with Greening of Detroit, Quicken Loans employees are actively involved in the neighborhoods they work in.

For instance, hundreds of Quicken Loans team members helped to plant the seeds for Detroit’s future during the Greening of Detroit’s Green Thumb Volunteer Challenge. Quicken Loans also provided generous donations and close to 1,000 hours of volunteer service to Forgotten Harvest  a nonprofit dedicated to relieving hunger in Metro Detroit. Because they are so focused on a specific community, it made sense for them to give back in as many ways as possible.

The bottom line

Individually, these steps only give a piece of the puzzle. But together each step builds one another, guiding your CSR program from strategy to impact.

Image credit: Pixabay

Andy Cummings has been with Versaic since 2003 and has been instrumental in building Versaic’s leadership position in the sponsorship and philanthropy markets. Over the years, through his extensive knowledge of Versaic’s product architecture and thousands of conversations with clients, Andy has built a solid understanding of how the Versaic platform can be adapted to create the most relevant applications and client solutions.You can reach out to Versaic via Twitter (@Versaic) and Instagram.

Versaic’s program management system is behind many of the best-known corporate philanthropy programs from some of the biggest brands around. For more information, contact 877-712-9495 or info@versaic.com.

Top PYXERA Global executives will be among the 55+ speakers at the 15^th Responsible Business Summit, presented by Ethical Corporation, to be held in London June 7-8.

Deirdre White, PYXERA Global CEO, will moderate “The Big Partnership Debate,” a dialogue that explores how to practically collaborate in a cross-sector partnership. The takeaway for participants will be an outline of how to practically approach collaboration and build a responsible partnership that meets their company’s needs and actually adds value. Panelists will include executives from Walgreens Boots Alliance, REN, the Fairtrade Foundation, Oxfam, and the Irish Food Board.

Harry Pastuszek, PYXERA Global Vice President of Enterprise and Community Development, will moderate a discussion on how to reach higher operational standards with suppliers and improve transparency. Panelists will include executives from Metro Group and Natural Health.

White and Pastuszek will join CEOs from Europe’s most innovative and inspiring brands in responsible business to discuss how to build trust and purpose for their business. Among them are Craig Kreeger, Virgin Atlantic; Jean-Marc Duvoisin, Nespresso; Michael Gidney, Fairtrade Foundation; John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow Airport; and Bas van Abel, Fairphone.

This year’s Responsible Business Summit agenda will focus on how to leverage responsibility to keep ahead of business risk.

PYXERA Global offers a wide range of services from local content development to global pro bono programs and integrated community development efforts that transform lives and livelihoods.

Source: 3BL Media

 

 

Many governments and businesses are trying to cope with the surging trend of urbanization in a world where we have to do more with less — as in space, water, energy and, arguably, even food. India, for example, launched a “smart cities” initiative to create a modern infrastructure for its rapidly evolving society — one that for millennia was largely rural, but now has seen its citizens flock to what are some of the world’s largest cities.

But this quest to redefine urbanization, and to build and redesign these smart cities, may already be over. If you take this term literally, it is pretty clear that the world’s balance of power, money and talent has already tipped in favor of a few dozen “megacities” that are home to the world’s largest companies, bustling technology hubs, universities and what authors including Richard Florida have called the “creative class.”

Many writers who have researched these demographic trends are vividly discussing what this means to the global economy and national politics. But whether the “smartest” or wealthiest people really do run the world from these megacities or not, the sheer size of these metropolises presents plenty of opportunities and challenges on the environmental and sustainable-development fronts.

One author who has touted the influence of megacities is Parag Khanna. In his book, "Connectivity," he argues that 21st-century competition -- and even conflict -- will not necessarily be over borders, but over what he says is connectivity, as in networks ranging from energy pipelines to broadband cables.

Khanna certainly has a point. Take a look here in the U.S. during this presidential election. Sure, Iowa and New Hampshire will cling to their outdated “first in the nation” stature, but the real action is going on as the minions of Clinton, Cruz and, soon, Trump are chasing and raising money in the Boston-New York-D.C. corridor or out west in the Bay Area or Southern California — after all, these areas combine for over a third of U.S. GDP. Many of the country’s largest businesses are in those regions, or are centered in that four-hour drive between Dallas and Houston or within the greater Chicago area.

Similar trends are ongoing worldwide. The greater Buenos Aires area holds a third of Argentina’s GDP — and similar ratios are found in the relationship between Sao Paulo and Brazil, Istanbul and Turkey, and Jakarta and Indonesia. Khanna’s analysis suggests as many as 40 of these megacities will dominate the global economy by 2025, operating almost as a political and economic silo from their home country, even if they happen to be national capitals.

And their influence is not necessarily limited to an artificial border. Take Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which together have arguably become the economic and even political capital of the Middle East and Northern Africa — despite low oil prices, they have become active investors throughout the greater region, helping to build infrastructure and increase energy access in nations such as Morocco, Egypt and Jordan. Singapore, arguably, has become the economic focal point of Southeast Asia.

Other organizations, such as the consultancy McKinsey, have also poured over data and conducted research to arrive at similar conclusions. Over the next decade, McKinsey also suggests the globe’s economic power will be concentrated in fewer cities, with their overall location shifting farther south and east.

But the big question that needs to be answered is: What will be done about the quality of life and affordability for the millions living in these cities? Khanna is confident that this interconnectivity can lead to a prosperous and peaceful society. But underneath the veneer of these macroeconomic trends, what is going on at the most local level also deserves attention.

After all, not everyone in these megacities is a techie in a hoodie or a trust-fund baby with copious amounts of money to play with. These areas will still have to rely on the grunts who keep the trains moving, offices organized and kids focused at school. People in these current and future megacities will also need to be fed and watered, which is why San Francisco and Los Angeles can never be disconnected from the likes of Fresno and Redding; Mumbai and Bangalore will also long have to maintain reciprocal ties with Kerala and Maharashtra. Such questions will need answers far more complex than urban farming or moving the masses into retrofitted shipping containers. If these cities can not be a viable home for everyone needed to keep a megacity and its economy humming, their long-term stature will not be sustainable.

That hardly means second- or third-tier cities will not be integral to the local economy — and in fact, they will maintain their political and cultural autonomy as described by the likes of Khanna and McKinsey, even cities like Chicago, Delhi and Beijing that are not considered current or future megacities. Smaller Midwestern cities, such as Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus and even Detroit, still hold plenty of potential for young graduates, tech entrepreneurs and the creative types who crave that urban environment without the exorbitant monthly price tag. European cities that fall under the radar, such as Wroclaw, Poland, and Trieste, Italy, offer opportunities to those who seek the chance to work in industries dominant in London or Singapore but want the city experience without the hordes of crowds.

So, while these megacities have already proven that they are the big kids on the global block, it is up to local municipal and business leaders to take the steps necessary to make sure they work for everyone. Otherwise, their long-term prospects are bleak.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

While advocates of clean-energy technologies such as solar and wind power tout their plummeting costs and ability to scale rapidly, there has long been the argument that much can be done to reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption by focusing on energy efficiency.

One firm that has capitalized on the energy-efficiency bandwagon is Opower, based in Arlington, Virginia. The publicly-held company, which generated almost $150 million in sales in the last fiscal year, sells data-management services that track electricity-consumption trends across tens of millions of homes in the U.S. and overseas. Opower claims its software services, which have been purchased by some of the largest utilities here in the U.S. and even Japan, have saved consumers over $1 billion in electricity costs.

On Monday, cloud-applications company Oracle announced that it would buy Opower for $532 million.

Obviously, this is great news for the Opower employees who have stock options: The company’s CEO, Dan Yates, made his glee known loud and clear on Twitter (although the Washington Post noted that there have not been announcements on layoffs or succession plans yet). But this is also encouraging for the clean-technology sector at large. Plenty of energy-efficiency and smart-grid technologies have emerged over the past decade, only to fade about as quickly as the average algae biofuels startup. Many of these companies had a solid product, idea and business model, but the market just was not quite ready for them.

Opower, however, harvested opportunities with utilities small and large as more states and municipalities imposed mandates related to climate change and clean power. The company managed to forge relationships with some of the country’s largest utilities, including PG&E, Exelon and Sempra. In turn, Opower churned out software that allowed utility customers to become smarter about their electricity consumption, such as receiving texts when power usage spiked. For example, the company worked with Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) to design an electronic communication system that it said helped save local utility customers $13 million in power costs over two years.

And to its credit, Opower managed to become a thought leader in the clean-energy and energy-efficiency space by sharing information that was seamless enough to understand by both business executives and consumers. The company was not afraid to jump into technical conversations, either, such as when it waded into the argument over what direction exactly those pesky solar panels should face.

So Oracle, which has built its success on enterprise software and cloud computing technologies, gives this still nascent clean-tech industry legitimacy with its latest acquisition. And the Redwood Shores, California-based company, which generated approximately $38 billion in revenues last year, has another opportunity to integrate itself even deeper within its customers’ operations, as it has already done with its popular customer-relationship management and human-resources software packages. Furthermore, there is plenty of data to mine from Opower, as the company stores information from at least 60 million utility customers.

Image credit: Energy.gov