Search

A new study from Arizona State University puts forth a plan for a more simple way to tackle one of the biggest challenges in modern economics: determining the proper economic value for nature.

Here's the problem: The most commonly accepted measure of national economic wealth, gross national product (GDP), does not include natural capital. That means the value of the world's trees, plants, clean water and air count for nothing, and are considered free goods. This is why environmental degradation and pollution became such rampant problems around the world, because our system could not account for it properly.

This study aims to change that by calculating natural capital in a way that the value of nature could be easily compared to that of other economics goods.

“Without an apples-to-apples valuation approach, the value of natural capital cannot be measured against other assets and expenses,” said Joshua Abbott, one of the report's authors. “Our work can help governments and businesses track the sustainable use of natural resources.”

It is obvious that this system is broken. Just look at, for example, Indonesia or Brazil. Those two countries are home to some of the most biodiverse forests on the planet, in the tropical jungles of the Amazon and the islands of Borneo and Sumatra. That's half of all plant and animal species on the planet in just two countries! The natural wealth is immense, and the services these forests provide -- in regulating carbon, providing clean water and maintaining temperatures -- are hugely important for the planet and human health.

Yet, for the past half-century, both countries have destroyed huge swaths of their forests to help grow their economies, following the dominant paradigm -- that nature is worth nothing, until it is cut down for timber (that can be sold) or converted into plantations (for exporting pulp and palm oil). This is nothing new: Europe developed in this exact same way, and today, the continent only has one tiny grove of old-growth forests left, the legacy of decades of industrialization for economic growth to the detriment of nature.

Such metrics can be a boon to companies that want to integrate sustainability metrics into their operations, as it will help them properly valuate their impacts on nature. That is the ultimate goal of this study: to provide a tool for policymakers to better understand how natural capital fits into the global economic system, and its role in sustainability.

“Sustainability is ultimately about making sure that the portfolio of assets we give future generations — including natural capital, but also our knowledge and physical infrastructure — is at least as valuable as the one we inherited,” Abbott said. “Our research helps us do a better job of bringing nature into the balance sheet of society, so that policy makers and business leaders can do a better job of evaluating trade-offs.”

Let's hope that this study, and similar initiatives, push the world toward a better economic indicator than GDP, one in which preserving nature is just as valuable, if not more so, than destroying it.

Photo Credit: Pixabay

By Jon Whiting

Climate change is often discussed as something that will affect our future generations. Unfortunately, it is already having a significant impact on our world.

A higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is affecting our climate, causing more extreme weather such as flooding, droughts, wildfires and heat waves. The map above highlights the impact climate change is having by showing the deaths in each country from these extreme climate events.

The map, by The Eco Experts, uses data from the Global Climate Risk Index 2016 which aims to “contextualize ongoing climate policy debates — especially the international climate talks — with real world impacts of the last year and the last 20 years."

Countries need to be fully aware of this data in order to make sufficient plans for an increasingly volatile climate.

The chart above shows the countries with the highest death rates per 100,000 inhabitants from extreme weather events.

Myanmar has the highest death rate. A staggering 14.7464 inhabitants per 100,000 have died from extreme weather events per year on average over the last 20 years.

Myanmar has been hit hard by extreme climate events in recent years. Cyclone Nargis in 2008, for example, took the lives of an estimated 140,000 people.

The chart shows Russia, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Croatia are all in the worst 20 countries. This contradicts previous studies that suggest more developed nations will be less affected by climate change (see the map for this study here).

Myanmar also tops the list for the most overall fatalities, shown in the chart above. India is second on this list. In 2013 India was hit by Cyclone Phailin, the second largest cyclone to ever strike the country.

Russia also features in the top three worst countries for overall fatalities. An example of the increasingly extreme climate events it faces is the intense heat-waves of 2010 which saw 50,000 people die.

The chart above shows the 20 best countries for death rate with recorded deaths from extreme climate events. Singapore tops this list with just 0.0022 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants a year on average over the last 20 years. Nordic countries feature heavily in the best 20 countries with Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway all included.

When looking at the world’s largest 20 economies according to the International Monetary Fund, it is clear that even many of these wealthy nations are struggling to deal with extreme climate events. France, Italy, Russia and Spain have alarmingly high death rates from extreme weather events.

Charts courtesy of The Eco Experts

Jon Whiting is blogger for The Eco Experts, a renewable energy comparison website in the UK. Jon is passionate about the environment and creates visuals to help make environmental and climate change research easier to understand.

By Nelmara Arbex

Is sustainability reporting as we now know it getting the job done?

I was thinking about that one day, a little more than a year ago, after watching the news. 2014 was not yet over, and it was already being called the hottest year on record. The southeastern part of my home country, Brazil, was experiencing a crippling drought, with water shortages in São Paulo. There were also a number of high-profile corruption cases involving business and government in Brazil and other countries.

I do believe that these are all issues sustainability reporting is supposed to help tackle. That was my hope back in 2001 when I first joined GRI’s Stakeholder Council. It was certainly my belief when I worked to develop the G3 Guidelines as member of GRI’s Technical Advisory Committee in 2006, and it was still on my mind, years later, when I was leading the global multi-stakeholder discussions to develop G4.

But there I was, almost 15 years later, full of the knowledge that most top 10 businesses in every sector had almost a decade of reporting experience, and it still felt like we were not as close as I had hoped we would be to creating a more sustainable and transparent world.

With these thoughts in mind, I cycled from home to the GRI Secretariat in Amsterdam. When I got inside the office, I told a colleague about my question and we began a discussion about all of the good that had been brought about because of sustainability reporting.

We talked about how G4 was designed to help businesses focus on what really matters, about the companies that had significantly cut the amount of carbon dioxide they emitted, or worked hard to eliminate child labor in their supply chains, or reduced the disparity in pay between men and women. Before long, we were trading stories about executives we had met over the years and how we had convinced them that financials alone were not the best way to express business results.

But, at the end of the conversation, we both admitted that we weren’t sure if reporting, as we now know it, had moved the sustainability agenda sufficiently forward in terms of supporting decision-makers. That was the day we decided to talk to others and get partners to investigate the future of reporting.

So, what would need to change in order to make reporting a more effective tool for decision-makers considering society’s urgent needs in the next decade?

In hopes of finding answers to this question, GRI and partners convened the Sustainability and Reporting 2025 project, which started in January 2015. Throughout the year, we engaged with business executives and experts from a variety of fields and regions, recorded and analyzed interviews. We began a global conversation about the key challenges that must be addressed and what needs to change. Over time, that conversation began painting a picture of a future in which businesses and their stakeholders work much closer together, in a more focused manner, supported by technology. This would allow them to liberate sustainability data from reports, and unlock its true value.

It was a great experience to dedicate 2015 to exploring answers to this fundamental and strategic question. It was also a unique opportunity to see how the very different perspectives from our interviewees revealed similar visions and perceptions about the future, while surprising us along the way, with details and connections we had never considered.

Today, more than a year after we began this journey, we are glad to present our main findings in the digital publication The Next Era of Corporate Disclosure: Digital, Responsible, Interactive, which lays out elements of a vision of the future of sustainability disclosure. I would like to invite you to have a look at it.

And, of course, our work has not stopped. We have begun shaping the next phase of this project, which will explore how data technology can be used to increase decision-makers’ and stakeholders’ access to unlock the value of sustainability data.

These and other related topics will be explored at the 5th GRI Global Conference, May 18 – 20, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Conference attendees will have access to a number of sessions related to GRI’s work in this area, including “the future of reporting in technology and big data," “reporting trends of the future,” “using sustainability data to enable transformational change,” and “the power of sustainability and decision-making.”
So I invite you to get involved in this conversation, download The Next Era of Corporate Disclosure: Digital, Responsible, Interactive, and also to join us for an inspiring three days at our Global Conference in May.

Hope to see you there.

Image credit: Pixabay

Dr Nelmara Arbex is an expert in the field of business and sustainability with over 15 years of experience. Currently, she is the Chief Advisor on Innovation in Reporting at GRI and works as a consultant. 

EP Journal

Trust in business today goes hand in hand with increased transparency

by Miranda Ingram

Corporate reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose, but any company that deserves to be in business in the 21st century knows that your corporate reputation rests on your corporate behaviour – is it ethical?

 Positive statements, colour brochures and appealing web pages trumpeting your corporate social responsibility (CSR) no longer cut it. Today’s stakeholders and a maturing Millennial generation are too sophisticated to be blinded by PR. There have been too many examples of companies winning awards for a glossy CSR report or initiative only to appear on the front pages weeks later accused of wrongdoing.

Today, you have to prove your ethical commitments, which means living them, not just stating them. Your stakeholders need to see you are a responsible corporate.

“Transparency is an essential component in the building of trust between an organisation and its stakeholders, yet it is a principle with which many still struggle,” says Leo Martin, director of business ethics advisors at GoodCorporation. “Contrary to what appears to be the widely held belief, stakeholders don’t expect organisations to be perfect, but they do expect them to be honest. Transparency is therefore vital.”

For some this is a scary prospect, says Martin. However, given the power of social media, organisations are realising that while they might chose not to disclose something, there is an increasing possibility that someone else will do it on your behalf. And bad news has a habit of going viral. “This doesn’t mean that corporates should publicise everything that goes wrong, but there are certain steps that companies can take to demonstrate openness and transparency.”

Organisations that understand their business risks and what they are doing to mitigate these risks are best placed to manage this with confidence. It also helps to have an open door policy that encourages ‘speak up’, ensuring that management hears first of any concerns and can take steps to address the problems.

It is worth remembering, Martin points out, that legislation such as the Companies Act, the Modern Slavery Act, and the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive are placing a greater onus on companies to report on management practices such as antic-corruption procedures, mitigating human rights abuses, prompt payment of bills, environmental impact, employee relations and board diversity.

“There are also growing calls for greater transparency on payment of taxes and pay ratios,” he adds.

“Organisations wishing to demonstrate real transparency and openness will need to understand their operations, how they do business and who they do it with. Not only that, but good reporting should reflect objectivity, acknowledging any issues found and make it clear how these were managed and any future risks mitigated.”

DOING THE RIGHT THING

Trust goes hand in hand with transparency. Hard to explain and in many senses an intangible, brand trustworthiness is essential if a company is to grow and its reach stretches way beyond the obvious stakeholders.

Take one of the UK’s biggest employers, Heathrow Airport, for example. Since most air travellers buy tickets according to flight schedules rather than airports, why should it matter to either flyers or pilots, that Terminal 2 is a ‘green’ building, that the vast amounts of de-icer employed in winter are treated in natural reed beds and that 70% of waste will be recycled or composted by 2020?

“On the contrary,” says Matt Gorman, Sustainability and Environment Director, “social and environmental commitments are core to the airport’s business. Firstly, we are geographically rooted—fifty percent of our employees come from the five boroughs bordering Heathrow. We need a licence to operate and being a good neighbour is vital to that.

“European airspace is in the process of being modernised and this will mean a change in flight patterns. The local community, as well as the political decision makers, needs to trust our commitment to reduce noise levels and carbon emissions, trust us to grow responsibly. We know, like any other company, that there is an increasing interest in sustainability and our environmental initiatives demonstrate that we too care about these issues. We need our neighbours to believe that when we add new connections we will not do this at any cost – we can’t expand without their belief in us.”

Secondly, says Gorman, as many companies are recognising, Millennial employees are increasingly reluctant to work for companies that do not do the right thing. “Without engaging in social and environmental challenges we would find it difficult to attract and retain talent,” he says. “Similarly, our passengers trust us to do right on their behalf, knowing that we will tackle the environmental impacts of their journeys.”

A brand is based on its key brand assets. The Heathrow brand is: British; Britain’s connection to the world and the global economy; the front door to the UK; responsible and sustainable. ‘Living our responsibility commitments is crucial to building trust in our brand as a whole.’

But while an increasing number of companies have impressive CSR departments staffed by social and environmental experts, a corporate reputation rests ultimately on good governance. There are two sides to corporate governance, one governed by law and regulations and the other very much discretionary, a company’s statement of ‘how we do our business’.

STAKEHOLDERS

“It is about the way business is conducted both externally and internally and about how the board helps and guides the company to enact its ethical commitments,” says Simon Webley, Research Director at the Institute of Business Ethics. “And it is about communicating your company’s attitude. Your five stakeholders – shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and financiers/investors – all expect to be kept informed. They have a choice about whether to continue doing business with a company or not.”

The key tenets of good governance are integrity and openness, and the board’s job is to communicate this code of ethics—ideally drawn up in consultation with staff—to employees at all levels and show how these apply to your stakeholders. For example, one commitment might be: ‘we pay our invoices on time’. “Make this a part of your statement and make sure that everyone is aware that this is a core value,” says Webley.

But while code of ethics statements are becoming more user-friendly, they are not sufficient on their own, he warns. “It must be real, applied and embedded. It must be accompanied by good internal processes for raising issues, asking questions, encouraging ‘speak up’. It involves internal awareness-raising and training as well as an open culture.”

In addition, the board must monitor and report on these issues: are people speaking up? What issues were raised? What did we do about them?

Corporate governance has to come from the top, Webley stresses.

“If your ethical statements are really to be part of the way your company operates then this is a boardroom issue – if it is subcontracted to other departments not only will be seen as just an add on but the board may not be aware of what is going on.”

Good governance is not just about doing good and enhancing your reputation. Good governance benefits your corporation. It is a way of catching problems early and not getting any nasty surprises. “You can’t insure against risks to your reputation,” says Webley, “so think of good governance as self-insurance.”

Sustainable sourcing in the apparel industry is complicated. The supply chain runs from raw materials like cotton, through the textile design, manufacture, pattern-making and finishing involved in the final product. These players often include factories that work on contract with stressful deadlines and last-minute changes based on up-to-the-minute sales forecasts.

In 2015, the global fashion industry produced an estimated 400 billion meters of fabric — just for apparel. Holly McQuillan, senior lecturer at Ngā Pae Māhutonga – the School of Design, explained to TriplePundit last year that 15 percent, or 60 billion meters, of that fabric was wasted during the production phase (extra fabric, itself a finished product, that ends up on the cutting-room floor), before the garments even reach a consumer.

So, how can designers, retailers and brands source the most sustainable and ethical materials amid myriad issues? Organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), As You Sow and the Responsible Sourcing Network have done studies and implemented programs like Clean by Design and the Responsible Sourcing Initiative to improve the textile supply chain. They seek not only to improve water and energy conservation, but also product timeframe, factory capacity and product lifecycle management, all of which combine to soften the environmental impact, increase efficiency and contribute to better purchasing decisions.

Choosing the right fiber

It all starts with the textile that will become a finished garment. Improvements in the apparel industry can start in the design phase by choosing fabric carefully. There is no one best choice for the environment, but a considered choice is the first step.

Historically, designers have paid little attention to sustainability -- focusing purely on style and price-point to set trends. A lot of the corrections to the industry are being made after a product’s design, "not during the design process where they could really have the most impact,” Tara St. James of the Brooklyn Fashion + Design Accelerator (BF+DA, part of the Pratt Institute), explained. BF+DA is going back to the drawing board, literally, showing designers the impact of their decisions from start to finish in the hopes that the next generation of designers will consider sustainability as a matter of course.

However, this shift can be difficult for major brands to implement since they are already operating at global scale in an environment with low profit margins and tight deadlines.

As You Sow reached out to name brands (Gap, Inc., Jones Apparel, Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, Nordstrom, Phillips-Van Heusen and Timberland) about their sourcing and purchasing practice. These were outlined in the 2010 Best Practices in Purchasing: The Apparel Industry report.

The organization found that “many of the compliance violations whose root causes were considered to be in the hands of the factories are now being traced back to corporate purchasing practices.” For example, tight timelines and last-minute changes limit suppliers' abilities to source textiles from reputable manufacturers. And the factories, at a competitive disadvantage, can't even charge the brands for late changes lest they risk losing a contract. "The retailers have the upper hand," the report explained.

As You Sow's research identified six practices by brands, retailers and designers that impacted supplier compliance the most:

• unstable relationships


• insistence on driving down prices


• constant increase in quality demands


• unrealistic turnaround times


• changes to submitted orders


• late cancellations

The report found that when brands improve purchasing practices on their end to address these factors, suppliers had fewer compliance violations and brands reduced their total costs of bringing their products to market, ushered the products to market faster, improved quality and reduced worker burn-out.

These benefits are moving all the way up the value chain to the design process.

Phillips-Van Heusen, an American clothing company which owns brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein and Izod, trains new employees about the ripple effects of purchasing practices. Managers in all divisions, along with retailers, "need to understand the impact of late decision making and how the supply flows are affected," As You Sow determined. If a brand makes a last-minute change, factories need to pivot to find new textile sources, which means sustainability considerations fly out the window.

Gap's designers use simulations to see the downstream impact of their choices. This led the apparel company to further concentrate on vendor relationships in the next few years. It stated: "This is one of our reasons for fostering a sense of partnership in our strategic relationships with vendors – because it helps both of us to improve. We are emphasizing vendor partnerships even more under Gap Inc.’s new sourcing strategy, which we began implementing in 2012. This strategy calls for working with a smaller, consolidated vendor base to facilitate deeper relationships."

Levi’s also has an exercise through which new designers are trained in product management and sustainability that highlights how even the smallest decisions “can directly affect a factory’s ability to meet our terms of engagement," the company said.

Other companies, like Nordstrom, are realigning business operations to better spread sustainability throughout the company.

The time crunch

The apparel industry is impacted by peak-season rush as well as last-minute changes to design or order size. All of these factors can have a huge impact on a factory’s ability to complete an order on time. In 2007, a study by Oxfam U.K. found: “Until companies recognize that their own sourcing and purchasing practices are one of the root causes of poor labor standards, they will not resolve the problems in their supply chains.”

Gap holds designers to a strict calendar, so the supplier has more time to plan and products can be created in a reasonable timeframe.

The company's VP of social and environmental responsibility (SER), Kindley Walsh Lawlor, moved onto the SER team after several years in production and visits to factories that she said were "eye-opening." She described how the company's decisions impacted the workers, both positively (when decisions were made on time) and negatively (when decisions were made late and impacted overtime and resulted in loss of quality):

"We are clear with designers that they can't change details up until the last minute and the production team understands that there is a timeline that needs to be respected in regards to when things are or are not changed, then we do see suppliers that are better able to comply with our code," she explained.

Nike has gone with a lean manufacturing approach for apparel. Instead of reinventing the wheel for each shoe design, the company implemented 40 to 50 percent standardization, which increases efficiency in both the design phase and in construction. If designs reuse standard components and supplier lines can reuse the same cutting dies, for example, the company realizes huge cost-savings and the supplier saves time during manufacturing and can better meet deadlines.

Timberland is also looking to standardize by designing more classic styles and reusing fabrics that repeat every year. "Longevity of fabrics enables us to book raw materials in advance on 55 percent of our main line styles. Booking raw materials ahead of time gives us flexibility in the supply chain so that we aren’t pushing last minute and decreases risk to us and our vendors,” the company said. This means that sustainable versions of the chosen fabrics are easier to source at more affordable prices.

What buyers can do differently

There are two ways that brands' buyers impact the process: during initial material-sourcing decisions and by limiting last-minute changes.

When reviewing suppliers, brands are paying more attention to capacity. Nike found that looking at capacity and helping suppliers plan their production flows ironed out many problems. Gap realized that, in previous capacity screening efforts, it focused quantity, not capability, and it needed to take both into account.

Before working with a new supplier, Nordstrom sends engineers to ensure the factory has the equipment, staffing and capacity that they claim to have. The department store chain also focuses on planning. It initiated a pilot that allowed the company "to give the factories a capacity plan. We have time periods where we need to tell them by a certain date if we need to reduce the order, and if it is beyond that date, we will pay them for the lost time,” Nordstrom said.

Forecasting demand for designs, quantities, sizes and colors is a difficult metric. Inaccurate forecasts lead to late changes. Last-minute changes increase the risk that workers will have to work excessive overtime and possibly not receive adequate pay because brands insist on the lowest possible prices, leaving suppliers in a tough position. Gap is training employees on making better decisions that don't negatively impact supplier workers.

Driving a hard bargain

Fashion's constant chase after the lowest price is perhaps the biggest factor that upsets any improved process, when suppliers fall back onto meeting buyers' needs at the expense of worker health, safety, working conditions and wages. Nordstrom uses a country's wage rate as a baseline. If the wage varies from this point, the company investigates why. Other brands work toward lowering costs by making better design decisions, so there is room in the profit margin to pay fair supplier wages.

Paying fair wages despite a time crunch, last-minute change or cancellation is often a challenge. Poor wages and overtime are often results of poor purchasing practices, but can happen even when both sides make a good faith effort to follow new processes. Things happen, but it is still the responsibility of the brand to ensure that supply workers are getting the wages they deserve, no matter what disruptions threaten the process. Nike created an overtime-tracking tool, and Gap focuses on ensuring that it and the supplier comply with wage laws. This is still a work-in-progress for most brands.

But forward-thinking brands have made great progress improving purchasing practices and collaborating with suppliers. If other brands follow in their footsteps, there could be an even bigger impact.

Supplier feedback

Some brands are also expanding on the idea of getting feedback from suppliers as an important part of evaluating the success of the improved process, although it's difficult to get suppliers to report honestly about the brands they rely on for business.

Levi’s found supplier feedback invaluable.

“When we’ve asked for feedback from our suppliers, we’ve discovered that sometimes the best insights actually come from the people working in the factories,” Levi's stated. The company learned that, in some cases, “our expectations simply haven’t been realistic. But when suppliers are offered the chance to provide feedback, we’ve seen how our decisions play out at the factories, and from there, expectations begin to change.”

Timberland's code of conduct senior manager, Colleen Von Haden, said that one of the biggest factors she sees for significant improvements in the company's suppliers' factories is when "they see that the brand was willing to point the fingers at themselves, and to start to make changes and own up and take responsibility for their role in how excessive work hours can be difficult to address. That bought us a lot of trust and cooperation. Then we saw them be more willing to make changes, when they saw us willing to do the same."

Keeping score

Brands are using scorecards to rate each supplier on their pre-evaluation of facilities, technical capabilities, product quality, customer service, innovation, and adherence to codes of conduct and contracts.

And the idea has caught on. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) began working on the Social and Labor Convergence Project in October 2015 with the goal of creating a standard, industry-wide metric for evaluating social and labor performance in apparel and footwear chains. With each brand performing its own audits, manufacturers are spending time, money and effort managing all the requirements for all their client brands, which increases their costs and consumes more resources. If there could be a standard metric that brands could agree on, then it could further streamline manufacturer processes and cut costs on both ends. So far, H&M, Nike, VF Corp, Levi Strauss & Co., PVH, Gap and Target have signed on and the first prototype is expected to be ready in mid-2016.

image credit: fabric image copyright-free from Pixabay.

Once upon a time, there was a scientific development called "biotechnology." As it advanced during the 1980s and 1990s, this new development was often seen as a way to cure world hunger. The debate at first was whether these genetically modified crops would make a difference at all. An article in the Los Angeles Times, published the same the year the Berlin Wall came down, summed up the discussion a quarter century ago:

"One of the great promises of biotechnology is that there will be this second 'Green Revolution' and that all the world's hunger problems will be eliminated," says Jack Doyle, director of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Project at the Washington-based Friends of the Earth. "The battle in the future will be how it's packaged: Is it put in a seed? Or does it just become part of a process?"

Hearings in the halls of government and conferences across the world were held over the potential of bioengineered crops. More farmers turned to them during the early 2000s. But instead of being seen as the key to ending famine in the developing world, these crops started to become commercially viable. Companies including Monsanto started to make a mint. And before you know it, the crops became known as UFOs, I mean, GMOs, and the collective freak-out began.

The debate has since morphed and is one that refuses to end: Are foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) the reality as the planet surges to a population of 9 billion people by 2050? Or are the potential risks from GMOs simply too dire to accept them into the world’s supply? Proponents of GMO research and development point out that there is no documented case of anyone becoming ill from GMOs. Opponents counter that their unknown long-term health effects, or what could happen if GMO plants cross-pollinate with other varietals of plants, have simply not garnered enough research. Hence the fight over mandatory GMO labeling here in the U.S. has been a bitter and expensive one — even though such disclosures have long been the standard across the pond in Europe.

But one’s stance on GMOs does not really matter on the labeling front anyway. Four ago, a voter initiative in California that would have mandated GMO labeling died at the ballot box after leading in the polls most of the year (thanks largely to companies like Monsanto, according to news reports). A long fight resulted in Vermont passing a similar labeling law that will take effect this summer. And one of the largest food companies in the U.S. now says it will follow the wishes of the nation’s second least populous state and start disclosing GMO ingredients on its labels.

In a blog post issued last week, a General Mills executive said it made no sense to publish labels solely for a state home to 625,000 people. While a specific date has not yet been given, the Vermont law becomes official on July 1. While insisting that 20 years of research are enough to verify that GMOs pose no health or public safety concern, and pointing out its natural and organic line of brands that include Lara Bar and Annie’s, General Mills says it wants to move beyond this “divisive topic” and get back to business. An official date for when GMO labeling at General Mills will start has not yet been announced.

Watch for other companies to follow suit. Earlier this year, Campbell Soup Co. said it will support federal legislation that establishes a standard for GMO labeling. Other companies, such as Kellogg’s, have struggled with their position on the use of GMOs. While many companies refuse to disclose which ingredients in their supply chain use GMOs, the general consensus is that the matter should not be up to the states, but to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Of course, punting and having the feds wade into the matter is an easy decision to make, since a polarized Congress will be slow to pass any such related legislation any time soon. Last year the House passed a bill that would have prevented state governments from passing any GMO-labeling laws. Another bill (H.R. 1599) was passed by the House last summer, but it is now languishing in the Senate. Opponents of GMO labeling often base their logic on the fact that the FDA has already said that GMOs are safe.

But that argument does not go very far in assuaging much of the American public. Science aside, this genie has long been out of the bottle, and decisions like last fall’s FDA decision to approve the sale of GMO salmon without labeling caused the usual outcry. Sadly, Americans across the political spectrum have an ingrained distrust of government institutions, which is one reason why more consumers are calling for more transparency in their food. But calls by consumers for an honest disclosure only come with the usual corporate response that such labeling will only drive up their costs of doing business.

Nevertheless, at a time when more consumers are becoming more aware of how their food is sourced, the reality is that companies at the forefront of GMO labeling will see an uptick in business — and, most importantly for the long-term, trust.

And in the meantime, as more research and data are released that confirm that these ingredients will not cause a third eye to grow (as has been shouted at me via social media when I tried to write another neutral article on this issue for TriplePundit), the controversy over GMOs will most likely die down. Plus, any concern over litigation should be moot as the FDA has given these companies cover with its stance on these crops. A continued tussle over whether such disclosures should be mandatory or not only makes it sound as if companies have something to hide -- and as we all know in this age of 24/7 news coverage and social media, such a task is almost impossible.

Image credit: General Mills (Flickr)

Once seen as yet another offbeat idea that comprised the sharing economy, ridesharing has turned into a huge business with the boom of companies such as Lyft and Uber. But these firms, which have started to enter partnerships with automakers such as GM, have also become integral to public transportation ecosystems in cities across the world. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the ability to snag a ride using a smartphone app has helped to transform commuting across the U.S.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) recently released a report that confirms what many observers have assumed about ridesharing — it helps urban transport systems become more efficient and spurs demand for public transportation services. It was not too long ago when the term ridesharing referred to vanpools, car pool matching services or the (in)famous “casual carpool” system that has saved commuters on toll money in the Bay Area. Now technology is allowing for even more flexibility to get around town, and the result is a rapid shift in the very concept of mobility.

The APTA’s research was based on interviews with public transport agency officials, data from 4,500 mobility customers and data from ridesharing companies including Lyft. Research focused on seven cities; Austin, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

First, the report found a correlation between those who embrace ridesharing and the amount they spend on transportation. Respondents who the study described as “supersharers” (those who frequently used ridesharing services for errands, recreation and commuting) generally used public transportation the most and had a lower rate of car ownership. And another trend that could promise to be a boon for public health: More frequent users of ridesharing services also tended to be more physically active.

Another important aspect of ridesharing is that it fills crucial gaps in public transport services. As anyone who has had a few too many during a night out will attest, ridesharing is often used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., a time at which bus or rail transport options are practically nonexistent in many cities. And again, on the public health and safety front, ridesharing has probably saved lives. Over 100 respondents said that a factor in using a service such as Lyft was alcohol consumption, and this information was volunteered — it was not an explicit choice offered to survey participants.

While ridesharing has rapidly become an important transport option, the APTA survey suggests that these companies’ business models and technologies have potential to improve paratransit service across the country. Paratransit trips (van or taxi services generally used by someone with a physical disability or the elderly) have surged in both numbers and price in recent years, which strains municipal finances and can leave citizens who rely on such services vulnerable to budget cuts. But the technology behind ridesharing services have the potential to complement paratransit services, allowing such transport options to be delivered more efficiently and cost effectively.

Among this sector’s larger challenges, however, is being able to keep such ridesharing services affordable so that all of society can access them. While ridesharing companies tout their affordability, whether such costs are light on the pocketbook or not is relative: The participants in the APTA survey had an average income of well over $90,000 annually. Finding ways to integrate ridesharing with other public transport options even more could be a lift to poorer citizens, who frequently lack the information and access to technology that would allow them to benefit from ridesharing even more. Fare and service integration, always a challenge in metropolitan areas, could be one way to make all of these transport systems work together even more seamlessly — which in the end could allow for easier mobility for even more citizens.

Image credit: SPUR (Flickr)

It was the summer of 2011. Michelle Blue just finished her sophomore year at the University of Georgia. To further her studies in fashion merchandising and marketing, she enrolled in a study abroad in Ghana, which gave her the opportunity to connect with inspiring, local organizations that empowered girls through education.

Blue immediately fell in love the with the spirit of these girls. Despite their lack of material possessions, they had so much joy and love to give. She called home and shared her experience with her best friend, Sasha Matthews, who was studying mathematics at Florida A&M University.

“Michelle called me and was very emotional,” Matthews shared. “She had met these amazing girls and really wanted to do something to make a difference. She explained the conditions in which the girls were living, and I identified with that.” Growing up in Jamaica, Matthews witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of poverty and how difficult it can be for girls to go to school.

The young women knew they had an important role to play in making a positive and sustainable difference in the lives of these girls. So, in 2013 Bené was born, an ethical fashion and lifestyle brand which is committed to empowering girls in Ghana through education. The company uses its profits to sponsor tuition, books, supplies and uniforms which enable these girls to complete their secondary education and fulfill their dreams.

Blue and Matthews recently shared their advice for launching a successful social enterprise with TriplePundit, with hopes of inspiring other emerging ethical fashionpreneurs.

Follow your passion

The idea behind Bené Scarves was birthed out of a desire to empower the girls in Ghana through education. A fashion-focused, social enterprise simply became the best way to accomplish this goal. For Blue and Matthews, it’s all about the girls. And, “it’s not always easy or glamorous,” they confessed. But at the end of the day, “If you remember why you’re doing the work that you’re doing, it motivates you to keep going,” Blue told us.

Start small

At first, Blue and Matthews had high hopes of building a full fashion line. They spent what little money they had ordering samples of elaborate dresses, skirts and tops which in the end only left them broke, overwhelmed and discouraged.

Inevitably, they decided to put their dreams aside for awhile. “But it was still nagging at us,” Blue recalled. “The girls were still there; the needs were still there; and we still wanted to do something.” So, in a wave of inspiration, they came up with the fantastic idea to start small with a simple line of scarves.

“Scarves are one-size-fit-all. We don’t have to deal with complicated patterns and sizes,” Blue explained. “It was important to us to perfect and master the scarves before we moved on to other products." This decision became the single most effective tool for building a strong foundation for a successful business.

People are your best assets

Starting out as young college students, the young women tapped into the resources that were readily at their disposal. From other budding entrepreneurs to graphic designers, they built a strong, dynamic team from the very beginning.

“You never know who is going to be that person who takes your business to the next level,” Matthews explained. “Outside of capital, people are the most important aspect of your business and your most valuable resource. Be good to people and people will be good to you.”

Capital constraints fuel creativity

The fact that Matthews and Blue began their business while they were still in college forced them to be a bit more creative when it came to building their brand. They developed a healthy relationship with the little money they had early on and proudly boast the fact that they have never needed outside investors. This has enabled them to operate their business without any debt, and they have learned to use their funds wisely.

Keep production close to home

At first, Blue and Matthews attempted to have the majority of their production done in Ghana, working with local seamstresses and artisans. But without a staff member on the ground, communication proved to be difficult, and “was just not where it needed to be,” Blue explained.

Reliable and consistent communication during production was incredibly important to them. And, since they had little experience in developing a fashion brand, they decided to bring manufacturing close to home. This has not only helped them learn more about the process of production, but has also enabled them to have face-to-face conversations with their manufacturers.

They’re currently working with a fashion incubator called Factory Girls based in Atlanta, which offers a variety of resources for budding fashionpreneurs. It has also made them feel more secure about ensuring ethical, cost-effective and fair labor practices.

Slow and steady wins the race

In a society which seems to reward speed and instant gratification, Matthews and Blue attribute their success to starting small, going slowly and acting with purpose. They stressed the importance of doing a little something toward your dream every day. “Send one e-mail, make one phone call, keep the wheels turning and keep going no matter what,” Matthews advised.

In the future, the friendpreneurs plan to expand their brand to feature other lifestyle products like candles and stationary. They also have plans to head back to Ghana to see their first class of girls graduate secondary school. They look forward to celebrating this important milestone with the students and witnessing firsthand the efforts their business has been able to produce.

If you or your company would be interested in making a tax-deductible donation toward making this possible, they would greatly appreciate the support.

The Bené Scarves spring 2015 collection, released in April, features trendy, dynamic prints and vibrant colors. Each design is inspired by the distinct personalities of the girls they support. Named by Mashable as one of the 11 black owned-businesses that are changing the world, we can only expect to see amazing things from them in the future.

Images courtesy of Bené Scarves

A vehicle that gets 22 miles a gallon might not immediately sound great, but if you are in the mass-transportation business -- or more specifically, if you are managing a fleet of buses -- that figure will most likely grab your attention.

In this business, you are more likely to deal with numbers like 4 miles per gallon for diesel buses, or even 3.5 for CNG vehicles. So, in that context, 22 miles per gallon is, quite literally, a whole order of magnitude better. And 22 miles per gallon equivalent (mpge) is what electric bus company Proterra is offering the market, and it's gaining momentum even as oil prices remain low.

TriplePundit spoke to Matt Horton, Proterra's vice president of sales, upon the news that the company’s buses have surpassed 2 million miles of service in the United States. The company operates 63 buses across Texas, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina and Washington. It claims this has saved over 420,000 gallons of fuel and averted 7.6 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

“The best sales have been in a year with the lowest fossil fuel prices,” said Horton, explaining the company’s growth in orders over the last 12 months. This has put pressure on production of the vehicles in the company's Greenville, South Carolina, facility, resulting in a backlog of over a year’s worth of orders. The timing, then, is perfect for its new Los Angeles factory which is poised to start production later this year to help meet the growth in sales.

This is a time of considerable change at Proterra. Six months ago, the company relocated its headquarters from South Carolina to Burlingame, California. The move, Horton told us, has been perfect “to make sure we are right in the electric vehicle nerve center.” The company has been pleased with the number, and quality, of individuals they have been able to hire in Silicon Valley, which Horton said is allowing it to build “a world-class battery engineering team.”

Proterra already has 15 different transit agencies as customers. The reason the company is enjoying sales growth is a result of both environmental factors and, possibly even more importantly, because of sound economics.

Taking the environmental case first. Back in February, the company announced that it would begin supplying buses to the University of Montana, its first university customer. The Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) ordered two 40-foot Catalyst Fast Charge buses, ASUM being one of a handful of student-led agencies. “Students are interested in sustainability in campus transportation,” Horton explained, adding that the student-led agency reached out to Proterra as it looked to reduce its carbon footprint in campus transportation.

But as well as environmental consciousness, environmental regulation plays a part, too. Horton explained that at the state level, the California Air Resources Board, for example, has ongoing funding for zero-emissions transportation, while at the federal level, the “FAST Act” signed into law in December 2015 offers long-term funding, too.

But while Horton told us that the state of California wants to add no more fossil-fuel-powered mass transit vehicles in 10 years time, the company thinks the state will get to that point before the regulators will make it a requirement -- because of the second reason, the economic one. Proclaimed Horton: “Fundamentally, growth will be driven by markets, not regulators.”

For example, electric buses have a compelling performance case. Horton pointed us to a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which undertook a study of one deployment of Proterra buses at Foothill Transit, and found that its buses are four times more efficient than compressed natural gas (CNG) buses while being three times more reliable. This means lower overall operating costs and less time out of service for repair.

In addition, Horton told us transit managers tend to be seasoned professionals, many of whom have been in the business for 20 or 30 years. They don't put too much stock in today's low oil prices, having seen many cycles of price spikes and slumps, and so prefer to take the long view. Horton explained that what transit managers hate is price volatility in their No. 1 operating cost -- diesel. By contrast, electricity costs are both much lower and much more stable than oil. In fact, Horton said, the current low cost of oil provides an opportunity: “Smart transit operators are taking capital now [from savings in fuel prices] and making investments in electric vehicles that will reduce their long-term operating costs.”

But do Proterra’s buses perform sufficiently well to take on the heavy-duty rigor of their fossil-fuel-powered counterparts? The company thinks they do. Proterra’s bus equipped with an extended-range battery is capable of 258 miles between charges -- which, when compared with the average duty of 120 to 140 miles in the typical “day-in-the-life” of an urban transit bus, is plenty of range.

Electric buses are well suited for the stop-start nature of urban routes. For longer distance hauls, Proterra's bus equipped with the fast-charge battery has been able to go 724 miles during the course of a single day, which bodes well, provided the charging infrastructure is available.

Still, the proof of concept appears to be in what Proterra told us has been a phenomenal year for sales and, certainly, Horton is bullish on the future. “This is the most exciting time in the transportation market in maybe 100 years,” he said, adding, “So much is changing, so quickly.”

Image used courtesy of Proterra

Life is getting complicated for 'numbers guys' like me who try to place people in category buckets for analysis. For example, in today’s political environment, how do you define a Republican or a Democrat? The fact that the answer to this question is no longer obvious, or attractive, is why a record 43 percent of us now describe ourselves as political independents. Independent or “none of the above” is now America’s largest political demographic group.

Political parties and business-marketing organizations are in a crisis as consumers/voters abandon brands, whether it is the brand of a political party or of a product. Market research finds consumers and voters are moving past brand messaging to evaluate individuals, and individual products, based on their authenticity and transparency.

Arising from the ashes of brand dissatisfaction and mistrust is a new demographic called the consumer/voter. One such example is the food voter. Food voters use their pocket books, and increasingly their votes, to select foods, food suppliers and politicians based on their support of values like sustainable sourcing of food, food label transparency and health claim authenticity.

Are you a food voter?

How do you know if you are a food voter? Here is a list of attributes:

1. You align with the 63 percent of consumers who read food/beverage labels and the 54 percent who select foods based on ingredients.


2. You are seeking more whole foods, like 1 in 3 consumers, or more organic foods, like 1 in 5.


3. Like 1 in 3 consumers, you are seeking to avoid 'bad food,' deemed as bad because it contains potentially harmful things like trans fat or chemicals


4. You are one of the 89 percent of likely 2016 voters who favor mandatory labels on foods which are genetically engineered or contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered.

Food voters are turning away from advertising and toward ancient wisdom

In the search for authenticity and transparency, the food voter is tuning out advertising and turning toward what New Hope Network calls “ancient wisdom.” Ancient wisdom embodies the food voter's search for foods untainted by the mass-marketed, industrial food system. The search for ancient wisdom is a key driver behind the growth of the Paleo Diet. It is driving the sales growth of “clean foods” that contain no modern chemicals. It is sparking the shift toward natural sweeteners. It is a major reason why there are now almost 8,500 farmers markets operating across the U.S. And it explains the sales explosion of craft beers. (Let’s drink a toast to ancient wisdom!)

This same trend is a major finding of my research on how to achieve sustained weight loss. We are in a weight crisis from eating industrial foods/beverages with added fat, sugar, salt and chemicals. The film "Back to the Future" is not about a flux capacitor. My research found that adopting lifestyle practices used before the advent of industrial foods and mass advertising will promote sustained weight loss and improved human health.

Food voters impacting government decisions

Food voters are not just voting at the cash register. They are achieving measurable political success. For example, the Grocery Manufacturers Association just lost a U.S. Senate vote where they attempted to stop states like Vermont from requiring food labeling to identify whether a food is genetically modified or contains ingredients that are genetically modified.

I assume that the 49 senators who voted against this power-play by an industrial food-lobbying group have read the same analysis I have that says almost 90 percent of likely voters want to know if a food has GMOs. And I also assume that the 48 senators (47 Republicans and one Democrat) who voted for preventing a state from enabling this level of food transparency have not heard of food voters, yet!

This is the first of several articles on food and human health that draws from my attending the Natural Product Food Expo 2016.

Image courtesy of the author