Search

By Alison Roel

Food fraud, simply put, is the selling of food products with a misleading label, description or promise.

Throughout history, dubious traders have looked to profit from substandard, less desirable or counterfeit products. From chalk in flour to horsemeat sold as beef – food fraud is as old as industrial food production itself.

Tricks of the trade have included coloring vegetables with copper; diluting milk with water; substituting herbs for other plants; and bulking up lamb curries with beef or chicken.

‘Food scandals’ leave consumers feeling duped, misled and distrustful of retailers and brands. They can also lead to people eating foods that violate their religious or moral values. Furthermore they can result in allergic reactions, poisoning and illness.

Governments around the world have responded. The Food Standards Agency in the U.K., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority and Food Standards Australia New Zealand, to name a few, commit extensive resources to ensuring the safety and correct labeling of our food. But the problem persists – and responsibility is often laid at the feet of food suppliers.

Seafood fraud: The problem with fish

Scientists have identified seafood as being affected by widespread, modern-day food fraud. The international trade and price variability of fish provides ample temptation to would-be fraudsters. As a result, lower-value fish, which may be associated with some types of food poisoning or allergens, are sometimes substituted for higher-value species.

DNA testing by organizations such as Oceana reveals the extent of the problem. Studies in 2015 found 43 percent salmon sold in the U.S. to be mislabeled, and that 30 percent seafood served in Brussels restaurants did not correspond to the species ordered. A 2016 study comparing 51 studies, accounting for 4,500 seafood samples, found an average mislabeling rate of 30 percent.

With seafood often passing through the hands of numerous suppliers on its journey from boat to plate, it’s not just the consumers being duped – it’s also retailers and brands.

Finding a solution

Following the formation of the Marine Stewardship Council in 1997, we faced two significant challenges: 1) encourage fisheries to verify their sustainability through MSC certification and 2), just as importantly, create a traceable supply chain which would give consumers, chefs, brands and retailers confidence that MSC certified seafood really does come from a certified sustainable fishery.

In 1999 we began consultation to find a solution. The aspiration was a globally relevant set of requirements, robust enough to ensure correct labeling throughout the MSC certified supply chain, but not too arduous for businesses to apply. This vision became a reality in 2001 with the launch of the MSC Chain of Custody Standard. In order to trade MSC certified seafood, companies must have a valid MSC Chain of Custody certificate.

These companies are audited regularly to ensure that they meet our requirements: MSC certified seafood can only be purchased from certified suppliers and must be identifiable at all times, segregated from non-MSC certified seafood, and sold with the correct paperwork identifying it as certified.

This means that seafood sold with the blue MSC label can be traced back to the ocean, giving buyers confidence in its provenance and sustainability.

How we know it works

The MSC regularly monitors this supply chain in order to ensure that our strict requirements are followed correctly. Since 2009, DNA tests on hundreds of MSC certified seafood products, all over the world, have shown that incidence of mislabeling amongst MSC-labeled seafood is less than 1 percent. Given industry levels of mislabeling, these results are quite remarkable, but we’re not complacent. Any non-conformities are thoroughly investigated and corrections made to ensure that the MSC Chain of Custody Standard continues to be applied correctly.

For example, an investigation into the one mislabeled sample in our 2015 DNA research found a product labeled as containing southern rock sole, was actually northern rock sole. Both species are very similar and fortunately both were MSC certified. However, a full investigation found errors with documentation in the supply chain. Actions have now been taken to ensure that this error does not reoccur.

The MSC Chain of Custody Standard is also used to ensure the traceability of seafood certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) standard for responsibly farmed seafood. Therefore, whenever you see the MSC and ASC ecolabels on seafood products, you can be confident, not only that they have been sustainably and responsibly sourced, but that they are what the labels say they are.

Find out more about MSC's traceability campaign at www.msc.org

Alison has been working for the Marine Stewardship Council as Product Integrity Manager for the last 4 years, including overseeing the DNA testing and test development. She previously worked with two certification bodies and at Fairtrade Foundation. Alison studied biology at Bath University. https://www.msc.org/

It started with a simple question from a good friend of mine considering a new job: "What do you think of Walmart?" My immediate instinct was to say how much I love looking at photos of Walmart people. But that made me stop and think a little - why are we amused by Walmart people? The answer is very simple, because we think we are better than them.

We wouldn't be caught dead at Walmart. Not with its cheap stuff and people that look like they just stepped out of some apocalyptic comic book scene. We can point and laugh at them because they are just not cool. They are just not as bright. Not as smart. Not hip. Like us.

But this isn't a piece about defending Walmart. Yes, it is noble that the company has a simple philosophy of getting the cheapest goods to the poorest Americans as close to their homes as possible. Or as its original mission statement said -- "To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same things as rich people." Simple and to the point. A social good baked into their mission. More on that another day.

The reason why we are amused is because we are the 1 percent. We in sustainability or even broader strategy or communications might not all be in the financial 1 percent (but close or very fast getting there), but we are almost all part of the intellectual 1 percent. That 1 percent who believe we see all the problems of the world very clearly and the answers almost as clearly.

We fall in love with the brands that are so cool at making the world a better place and oh so revolutionary in how they hug a tree. Did I mention how "innovative" those companies are? Or any other word that is part of our ‘disruptive’ vocabulary?

We hold up the brand examples of changing the world and argue that if only more companies could be like this. But we forget that these companies are not there for the people of this earth but for the 1 percent like us. We go shopping at Patagonia because we can afford it. Not only can we afford the clothes, but we can also afford the time to actually go out into nature for a run or a holiday. We are the ones who buy a Tesla because we can afford it and it makes us look cool. We eat the nutritional food that comes so nicely packaged. We are the ones.

These companies serve us -- the 1 percent. They do not serve the majority.

We are the ones who tell our clients to do sustainability reports because it measures their impact. And, we are the ones who throw the stones when those impacts don't measure up to our expectations. If only every client could be like Patagonia. Or sell cool nutritional stuff instead of fast-food burgers. Because, you know, that's what we eat.

We tell our clients to target those who can move their brands forward fast -- the influencers. These are the people in the know. They go to the cool places. They tweet. They blog. Sorry, vlog. They speak at TED, have cool parties at SXSW and hang out with the other hipsters at Burning Man. You know -- they are the others among us in the 1 percent. They are more people like us.

You see the problem with all of this?

We create solutions for the 1 percent. We think it is cool that Patagonia says it doesn't want to grow any more and don't for a minute stop to think what that means for the 99 percent excluded from the conversation. We cater to people like us.

No one working two jobs is going to SXSW. No one who lost their home during the "crisis" (even the word is so 1 percent) is going to hang out with us at Burning Man. No one watching Nascar is going to watch a TED talk.

Of course we feel so proud of telling people we sometimes shop at Walmart or eat at McDonald’s because it gives us some street cred and shows how connected we are to “the people." But we know that it is not really our scene. We say it almost as an embarrassment.

You want to change the world? Then focus on the world. Stop being the cool kid. Stop being the Kim Kardashian of sustainability. Start being here. Start with where people go to live and survive. Start looking at the world through the eyes of someone just trying to get through today. The majority of people aren't bad and don't live horrible lives. They aren't in jail or suffering from extreme poverty. The majority of people are just living life, trying to catch a breath in between jobs, kids and homework. We in the 1 percent even have a luxury name for it -- work-life balance. The majority of people just have a bit of life when they aren't working.

Stop judging. We aren't better than them. We don't have some magical insight into life that makes us better. We aren't any better. And please, be honest with yourself -- you think you are better.

Start changing the world by looking at the world. By being part of the world. Go shop at Walmart. Go buy a Big Mac -- hey, they have salads now. Go drive a Chevy truck. Go live in the suburbs. Go and be part of humanity. Enjoy it for what it is -- deeply flawed, silly and human. Start looking at what makes them tick. What makes us tick.

Ask yourself the simple question from their perspective -- why should they give a shit? Whether it is climate change or corporate responsibility. Solar power or sustainability. Poverty or purpose. Water or waste. Fair trade or faith. So often the majority of people simply don’t have the luxury to reflect on these things. Of course they also want a better world -- for them and for all of us. But they just live life. Their life. We are consumed by the luxury of the 1 percent while they are consumed by life. With everything thrown at them, they don't need another preacher. Another wise ass telling them what is good and what is cool. Oh wait, you don't even talk to them. You just talk about them.

I know, I am doing the “them” vs. “us” thing right here while talking against it. But I hope you will forgive me for generalizing while trying to make the point that what is “normal” isn’t the life of us (the 1 percent) but a different world all together. We have to understand that to create the change we as a world desperately need. We need to stop being cute and exclusive in how we view the world and what is right and wrong.

We aren’t any better when we think and act the way we do. We want fair trade coffee, and they simply want a coffee. We want vegan and hand-crafted, while they simply want a meal. We want an electric car, while they just want transportation. We want LEED-certified buildings, while they just want a home.

When do we become we? All of us?

You can still do the cool stuff but the ratio will change: 10 percent on the cool people and cool stuff. Remember, influencers are there to influence and not the actual target – so don’t spend all your time on them. Vlog, VR and PR to your heart's content. Tweet at the 1 percent. And then step back into the world and remember that less than 10 percent of people in the U.S. use Twitter. VR is a reality far away from the lives of everyday people. SXSW is only to their benefit if you buy food off their food truck. And not the cool truck either.

Yes we are the 1 percent. And that is fine. Just don't live in the 1 percent bubble.

Image credit: Flickr/David Shankbone

By Anisa Kamadoli Costa

Today, we place an undeniable premium on artisanal products — handmade cheese, woven rugs and finely crafted pieces of jewelry. Whenever I buy these treasures, I feel a connection to the people who made them: By buying their work, I am supporting a local, entrepreneurial way of life.

In business, there is a small but growing movement to build connections between consumers and makers. Niche companies like Everlane and Zady share the stories of the people who grow the raw materials and produce their goods.

It’s inspiring to see consumers taking an interest in how their products came to be, and investing in artisanal work that can help communities sustain their culture and build their livelihoods. But for many people working in artisanal jobs around the world — from fishermen in Colombia to gold miners in the Congo — the reality is much different. They labor in unsafe conditions, without protections and guarantees of fair wages, enduring conditions that confine them to a life of poverty.

To truly connect with the makers of our products, we need to do more to protect artisanal communities globally.

Over the years, there have been many efforts across industries to establish standards that improve conditions for people working in global supply chains, and while these efforts at “systems change” have been critical, some of the most significant strides have been made by grassroots organizations working from the ground up.

In the jewelry industry, where I work, one of the groups making great progress helping artisanal miners is the Diamond Development Initiative (DDI). The concept of DDI emerged in 2005 and its operations began in 2008. DDI picked up where the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme left off. While the Kimberley Process has made progress toward eliminating “conflict diamonds” from the rough diamond supply chain, this focus on trade alone did not change conditions for artisanal miners.

In Africa, an estimated 1.5 million diamond diggers survive on less than a dollar a day and labor under unsafe conditions in countries that are still recovering from the ravages of war. These individuals are also in a vulnerable position because they work outside of the formal economy, so although they are responsible for mining some of our most valuable items, they lack the know-how to get a fair price for their wares.

For nearly 10 years, the Tiffany & Co. Foundation has provided funding to DDI because the organization takes an expansive, long-term approach to improving the lives of miners, their families and their communities. DDI recognizes that creating a sustainable artisanal industry means supporting miners through a number of avenues.

The two DDI programs that the Tiffany & Co. Foundation actively supports are its work in developing and implementing a standard that applies to small-scale diamond miners, and its work to register artisanal gold and 3T (tantalum, tin and tungsten) miners, educating them as to the benefits of registering with local authorities. As an additional benefit to the communities it serves, DDI holds workshops to increase the business acumen of the miners.

Since creating a sustainable community involves more than just business, DDI also invests in development programs such as mobile schools for miners’ children. Finally, DDI works with governments and actors at the systems level to shift their mindset about artisanal mining: if the government invests to formalize the sector, this will promote economic and social stability.

DDI’s work has demonstrated real impact. In 2015 alone the organization has successfully registered over 100,000 gold and 3T artisanal miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Sierra Leone, a country set back by the Ebola outbreak, DDI piloted the diamond standard system to miners at 10 sites. Showing a true commitment to the people of Sierra Leone, DDI staff stayed at the mining camps during the Ebola crisis, shifting gears from running the pilot project to providing Ebola relief. This adaptability helps the organization gain the trust of local communities and helps make their efforts stick.

This year, DDI will expand the pilot, starting with Western Africa, to include additional mining cooperatives and between 20 and 30 sites. Some of the best evidence of progress is in conversations DDI staff have had with individual miners when the miners start to understand how responsible mining practices really can change their lives.

By investing in organizations like DDI that are working locally with artisanal communities, we can ensure that they receive skilled jobs, enjoy sustainable incomes, and live in resilient communities.

And when we, as everyday consumers, buy artisanal wares, we can feel good about the connections we are building — connections that can truly transform lives.

Image credit: Flickr/akunamatata

Anisa Kamadoli Costa is chief sustainability officer at Tiffany & Co. and also serves as chairman and president of The Tiffany & Co. Foundation.  In this dual role, reporting to the CEO of Tiffany & Co., she oversees the company's global corporate responsibility agenda and directs strategic grantmaking on behalf of The Foundation. 

By Irwin Speizer

You don’t need a wind turbine to run a vegetable-processing plant. Or a solar panel array to make wine. But you will find both in Gonzales, California, a town that makes a point of promoting sustainable growth in its economic development effort.

Situated in the heart of California’s Salinas Valley agricultural region, Gonzales is proving that even a small city – it has a population of fewer than 10,000 – can make a big difference in the lives of its citizens by being both ecologically aware and business friendly.

The Gonzales move into sustainability practices has become a central part of its economic development effort and is now used by the city as a way to distinguish itself from others competing for new business.  The city not only works closely with companies to assist them in relocating or expanding, but it also often partners with those companies on sustainability projects.

“We are about sustainability, using the environment better, saving energy,” says Gonzales City Manager René Mendez. “It provides additional value to companies besides breaks on fees. This is something else we bring to the table.”

The sustainability-fueled economic development methods employed by Gonzales appear to be working. The city saw its property tax base grow by 16.65 percent from 2014 to 2015, double that of the next closest municipality in Monterey County. It has done that while simultaneously reducing the city’s carbon footprint thanks to the addition of solar and wind power, creative recycling programs, and other efforts organized under a city initiative called Gonzales Grows Green (G3).  The G3 initiative is built around three principles: economic vitality through diversity in growth, environmental responsibility, and social equity.

Among the companies that responded to the Gonzales style of economic development and moved to town:

• Taylor Farms. A leader in the growing and processing of fresh vegetables, Taylor Farms recently constructed a major new vegetable processing and cooling facility in Gonzales and also partnered with the city on the towering wind turbine that was erected on city land near the plant. The wind power helped Taylor cut its electricity costs while also reducing its carbon footprint.


• Ramsay Highlander. The manufacturer of custom harvest equipment that is shipped around the globe moved to Gonzales in 2000 and has expanded since then. The company’s custom-made machines are designed to improve efficiency and reduce waste in the harvesting process, both pluses in the sustainability drive.


• Healthy Soil. The company produces additives that enhance soil health rather than simply promote plant growth as most fertilizers do. It moved to Gonzales in 2002 and has expanded since then.


• Pure Pacific Organics. The processor of organic vegetables and salad mixes opened its new plant in Gonzales in 2010 and has plans to expand. The company applauds the city’s sustainable and green outlook, which it says compliments its own organic product line


• Constellation Brands. The sprawling Constellation winery in Gonzales has its roof covered with solar panels, which serve not only the winery but also a municipal water pumping station.

Executives of these companies praise Gonzales for both its flexibility in working on business development projects and its promotion of sustainable principles.

Gonzales expects to more than double its population to 24,000 by 2035 while sticking to its ecologically sensitive standards.  “We are determined to grow responsibly,” Mendez says. “We will be a model of sustainability and provide a good quality of life, beginning with our children who will become our most valuable resource in the future.”

Image courtesy of Blue Sky Cinematography, used with permission

Irwin Speizer is a freelance writer and communication consultant with a specialty in finance. He is a long-time resident of the Monterey Peninsula of California and a former business editor of The Fresno Bee. His writing has been widely published in newspapers, magazines and web sites. Irwin also works as a writer and communications consultant with Armanasco Public Relations in Monterey.

By Daniel Matthews

People have high expectations about what science and technology can do for our everyday lives. New technology informs efforts at farming. The medical community is progressing with big data to make improvements in patient care. We’re on the verge of seeing drone delivery and automated cars become a reality.

But what will we do with the discovery of gravitational waves? Or, more precisely, what will we do with gravitational waves?

After LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) detected the gravitational waves emitted for twenty thousandths of a second by two colliding black holes, the scientific community, and the publications that reported the discovery, were abuzz. But when reporters asked LIGO Executive Director David Reitze what the discovery means in terms of our everyday lives, he answered, “Who knows?”

A wise answer. What we do with gravitational waves is a matter of our cultural values. It’s a matter of how we want to steer the ship of technology, and science doesn’t make prescriptions in that respect. It makes observations.

I think our society, as a whole, is responsible for how we use discovery. I think we have to examine our uses of related tech and ask if we like what we’re doing so far.

When reporters asked Reitze about the practical usage of gravitational waves, he brought up how people had the same question about Einstein’s theory of general relativity. General relativity describes the way in which gravity affects the passage of time. That is, time is relative to how far away objects are from each other. One way we’ve put this fact to use is with the Global Positioning System (GPS). The system tells us the time by factoring in relativity.

GPS is a web of satellites around the Earth that transmit time and locational information to us via radio waves. Not only is GPS integral in smartphones, fleet managers use it to track fleets of commercial vehicles; businesses use it for geolocation marketing; modern cars incorporate it, and driverless cars won’t work without it — the applications are numerous. The military uses it for all operations, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although there are a great deal of other applications for general relativity, GPS is the one affecting us most in our everyday lives. Are we putting such a broad-reaching and important discovery to good use?

Driverless tractors use GPS, but they’re too expensive for most small, sustainable farms to afford. Driverless tractors do more work for the big guys. Big farming practices are rarely organic or sustainable, thus the push against GMO and monoculture.

Electromagnetic technologies

Before Einstein discovered relativity, scientists and inventors were busy discovering and exploring the possibilities of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In July of 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot President James Garfield in the back. Doctors couldn’t find the bullet. Alexander Graham Bell, knowing what he knew about electromagnetic waves, brought an early prototype of a metal detector to bear on the problem. The device was confused by springs in the bed, but otherwise would have worked. Bell continued working on procuring the patent for the telephone.

Later, Dr. Gerhard Fisher showed his “aircraft radio direction finder” to Einstein, who predicted its ubiquity. Sure enough, Fisher’s invention went on to become the modern metal detector. Mostly what we see — in wands at security checkpoints, in the hands of treasure hunters — is the Very Low Frequency (VLF) detector. These things work the same way electric motors work, by using a transmitter to create an electromagnetic field.

We’ve also harnessed electromagnetic energy for our radios, TVs, cell phones, microwaves and the Internet. We use the whole spectrum of electromagnetic waves for a variety of commercial, military, medical, and scientific purposes. We could have used electricity to power everything that runs on fossil fuels. But a freely available source of energy with no commercial aspect wasn’t part of our value-set.

America is so into its gadgets, researchers at the University of Washington are working on turning radiofrequency (RF) waves into direct current (DC) power, so people can charge their cell phones via Wi-Fi.

The Internet of Things will use RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), Wi-Fi, GPS, LiDAR and a bunch of other technologies to do things like automate the office refrigerator. On the more serious side, driverless cars could prevent up to 1.3 million deaths annually, because machines don’t drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel. And, if they’re electric, these cars could help us keep a great deal of the Earth’s fossil fuels in the ground.

So, how do gravitational waves fit into this picture? We’re not able to siphon these waves into convenient, portable, smart devices, and it confounds us. For now, research investment will be a purely scientific endeavor. I think that’s a good thing. Unsullied by commercial interests, science can bask in a formative period of exploration. Nikola Tesla comes to mind. He was a scientist who discovered ways people can benefit from the electromagnetic spectrum outside of the commercial sphere. But oil interests buried his ideas. They’re only coming back to the surface now.

The promise for gravitational waves is a new way of looking at the universe, a new way of viewing time. Could we use gravitational waves in space travel? That would require technology no one has dreamed of yet.

I hope our dreams of gravitational technology can elevate above capital. I hope we can focus on valuing our planet, the universe, and each individual with the technology we create. After all, we’re all affected by how we use discovery.

Image credits: 1) courtesy of YouTube 2) Wikimedia

By Richard Holland

International clothing brands and retailers have a crucial role to play in securing the future of the market for more sustainable cotton.

Various types of sustainable cotton production -- ‘organic,' ‘Better Cotton’ and ‘fair trade’ -- have grown enormously over the last five years and now make up over 10 percent of total global supply. As a result, buying more sustainable cotton has never been easier.

And leading companies such as Ikea and H&M are showing it's possible to use 100 percent more sustainable cotton in all their products. Ikea reached this milestone in 2015, and H&M should do so within a couple of years.

Arguably, the growth in supply of more sustainable cotton is largely down to the success of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). Its journey began 11 years ago when a group of retailers including Ikea, H&M, Levi’s and Marks & Spencer got together with WWF, Pesticide Action Network U.K. and Solidaridad to explore how cotton might be produced with less impact on people and nature, and with farmers making a decent living from growing the crop. From those early discussions, in 2009 a system designed to produce an improved 'mainstream’ commodity, that complements organic and fair trade cotton, emerged in the shape of Better Cotton.

This is extremely significant. Cotton provides a living for about 100 million families, the vast majority of whom live in developing or emerging economy countries. And conventional cotton production uses high levels of pesticide, fertilizer and water with knock-on environmental effects. Cotton is also a crop troubled by unsafe pesticide application and poor working conditions for the millions of women who do most of the planting and picking of cotton. The U.S. Department of Labor reported in 2014 that child labor or forced labor still existed in the cotton production process in 18 countries, including five of the top six producer nations (China, India, Pakistan, Brazil and Uzbekistan).

All of these things mean that any system that can improve the sustainability of cotton production can have significant benefits for people and planet.

A number of sustainable cotton standards have been developed in the last 30 years, starting with certified organic cotton in the 1980s, followed by fair trade in 2004, Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) in 2005 and the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) in 2009. All of them provide guidance and support for farmers and reassure consumers and retailers that the products they buy are being produced using sustainable farming methods.

However, we are at something of a crossroads. Despite these various types of sustainable cotton now making up around 10 percent of global supply, there is a gap between supply and uptake. Presently, a significant amount of ‘more sustainable’ cotton ends up on the conventional market and is not sold as sustainable.

New research to be released by WWF, Pesticide Action Network U.K. and Solidaridad in April will reveal the extent of this gap and highlight some of the factors behind it.

While several companies have made commitments to source 100 percent more sustainable cotton, what seems clear is that if greater demand is not reflected in increased orders from retailers, there is a danger that farmers will abandon sustainable practices and the opportunity to improve global cotton production will be missed.

Pakistan is not well known for leadership on sustainability issues. Despite this, much of the initial innovation and momentum for Better Cotton came from support provided by its textile companies, trade associations, governmental farmer support programs and NGOs including WWF-Pakistan. Indeed, through Better Cotton projects funded by Ikea and WWF, it was possible to demonstrate early on in Pakistan that the changes in farm practices required for the reduction of environmental and social impacts could also deliver increased income for farmers of 20 to 35 percent on average. As a consequence, whole families and communities benefit, and children once obliged to work in the cotton fields can go to school.

Although the success of the BCI is owed to countless people around the globe, including leading NGOs such as Solidaridad and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN-UK), and WWF partners M&S, H&M and IDH - the Sustainable Trade Initiative, one company stands out: Ikea.

Ikea showed unselfish leadership by investing substantially in training farmers in Pakistan and India and then inviting other companies to join them in buying Better Cotton. This commitment helped build the business case for Better Cotton while lowering the barrier of entry for others. Ikea has now reached its target of buying 100 percent of the cotton it needs from more sustainable sources. Sustaining Ikea’s vision over the long-term as the company looks beyond this target is a solid business case for change founded on ensuring security of supply, reducing business risk, increasing productivity and strengthening brand reputation.

Nevertheless, the sustainable cotton journey is far from over. Although Better Cotton accounts for about 10 percent of production today, BCI’s ambition is to reach 30 percent by 2020, benefitting some 5 million farmers worldwide and making Better Cotton a mainstream reality. We need more companies to follow Ikea’s lead.

Isn’t it time we all asked our favorite brand when 100 percent of its cotton products will come from more sustainable sources?

Click here to find out more about WWF’s market transformation work.

Image credit: Flickr/Gene Bowker 

Richard Holland is Director of WWF's Market Transformation Initiative.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census and other government agency estimates, almost 40 percent of Americans live in counties along a coastline. Economic opportunities in cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, along with many citizens' desires to live in a warm Southern climate, could see that proportion increase by another 8 percent by the end of this decade. About half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a shoreline, and why wouldn't that be the case? The coasts are integral to commerce, recreation and, for millions, an incredible quality of life.

So, even if only a few of the suggested risks associated with climate change come true this century, the results will cause huge headaches for real estate companies, insurers, municipal governments and, of course, many citizens. In fact, a new study released by the journal Nature suggests that in a worst-case scenario, as many as 13 million people will be seriously affected by rising sea levels due to climate change by the end of this century. The data revealed in this study adds to what has been a very long wake-up call: Politicians who balk at climate adaption costs for a threat of which they are still not convinced leave the potential for an even larger and more expensive mess for the next generation.

Even a conservative sea-level rise of three feet could wreak havoc on rural and crowded urban areas alike. North Carolina’s Tyrrell County, the state’s least populous county with only 4,400 residents, has the highest percentage of people who would be potentially at risk from rising seas. The Nature study, led by University of Georgia Ph.D. candidate Mathew Hauer, also demonstrates the potential for future tension between wealthier regions such as the Bay Area and Houston against remote areas like North Carolina’s Outer Banks or Virginia’s Eastern Shore. When federal, state and regional governments finally start becoming serious about climate adaptation and mitigation, will poorer areas lose out on funding compared to the wealthier and more politically influential cities? Or will citizens in these less affluent counties just be told to move? And for a state such as Florida, which by far could see itself in a massive crisis with at least 3.5 million future residents under threat, what can be done when the highest point in the state is only 345 feet above sea level?

Such disputes are already underway in Alaska’s Arctic coastal areas, where residents say the effects of climate change are clearly evident. Newtok, a small village home to about 350 people, voted to move nine miles away to higher ground as far back as 1996. Melting permafrost and erosion have made life in the western Alaskan outpost nearly impossible, so local leaders negotiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move to another location in exchange for allowing their current home to become a wildlife refuge. But as the Atlantic explained, nothing has happened since the arrangement was agreed upon in 2003. Another village, Kivalina, could find itself under water as soon as 2025. The most daunting challenge these communities face is that U.S. disaster relief policy is overwhelmingly reactive; federal agencies such as FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are quick to arrive after a catastrophe. The will to prepare and avert a potential disaster such as in Newtok or Kivalina, however, does not exist: Leaders do not want to be on the hook for massive infrastructure projects related to something they see as nebulous as climate change.

Some states, including California, are trying to get ahead of the curve. California has invested in its fair share research outlining future risks the state’s coast confronts. The issue, however, is that such information available to the public tends to go far beyond policy wonk-speak and does not resonate with residents and the business community.

In the meantime, business and government really have no choice but to find ways in which they can work together to adapt to, if not mitigate, what will be a very different environment in the coming decades. But as long as companies stifle any discussion of climate change, politics continue to get in the way of long-term planning and climate action is seen more as an indulgence and less as risk management, watch for these costs — and human misery — to rise even more.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

A federal judge in Oregon is deciding whether a group of children have the right to take the federal government to court over climate change and hold leaders accountable for squandering natural resources, including clean water and air.

These children ranging from 8 years old to those in their teenage years are the faces of a public lawsuit organized by Our Children's Trust. The suit compels leaders to take bold steps to prevent atmospheric carbon emissions from veering further out of control.  Records already show that global CO2 emissions have reached 400 parts per million even though 350ppm is the highest level climate scientists have deemed safe.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin is expected to rule this spring on whether the case can move forward.  This comes after the Department of Justice and fossil fuel industry leaders asked the court to dismiss this historic lawsuit.  Judge Coffin recently heard arguments from both sides on dismissing the case.

Youth Press Ahead and National Media Covers Their Landmark Case #climatekids https://t.co/Zi72ofMeZO pic.twitter.com/ZErygbBC0r

— Our Children's Trust (@OCTorg) March 15, 2016

The children are making the case that America's failure to act on climate change is robbing future generations of opportunities. The youth include the granddaughter of former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.  Their legal team is arguing the consequences of not turning back climate change are so serious that the next generation is being denied its fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

As an expert on climate change science, Hansen offered a declaration addendum to the plaintiffs' case.  The declaration includes this explanation of the government's contradictory role regarding climate:

"On the one hand, our federal government has recognized a fundamental duty to protect the public resources of our nation; to safeguard our lives and property; to secure the blessings of liberty; to ensure equal protection under the law for 'ourselves and our posterity'; and, pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to 'protect the climate system for present and future generations.'

"On the other hand, the federal government continues to permit and otherwise support industry’s efforts to exploit fully our reserves of gas, coal, and oil, even in the face of increasing overwhelming evidence that our continued fossil fuel dependency is driving the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) far beyond that in human experience, and constitutes one of the greatest threats to our nation, human civilization and nature alike.

"These antinomies cannot be explained away as the product of ignorance. Our government has known for decades that the continued burning of coal, oil and natural gas causes global warming and risks dangerous and uncontrollable destabilization of the planet’s climate system on which our nation and future generations depend."

The suit was filed against the U.S. government, not private industry.  But entities now listed as intervenor-defendants include the National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute.

The defendants call the lawsuit "extraordinary," as they argue the children and their legal team are asking too much of the government and industry regulation. One specific argument against the case is that the public trust doctrine is a matter for states to deal with, not the federal government.  Another is that greenhouse gases are a global issue that cannot be the responsibility of any one government.  The two sides are also debating whether children qualify as a protected class of citizens.

"Defendants are wrong that our complaint fails to allege constitutional and public trust violations for the harms caused these young plaintiffs," said Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children's Trust, in her closing argument of the March hearing.  "Defendants in essence ask this court to ignore the undisputed scientific evidence, presented in our complaint in opposing this motion, that the federal government has, and continues to, damage plaintiffs' personal security and other fundamental rights.  But these young plaintiffs have the right to prove the government's role in harming them has been knowing and deliberate."

Several of the young plaintiffs have been outspoken throughout the civil process. Sixteen-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett told reporters at a news conference: "I want to do what I love and live a life full of opportunities. I want the generation that follows to have the same and I absolutely refuse to let our government's harmful action, corporate greed, and the pure denial of climate science get in the way of that."

Our Children's Trust is a human rights and environmental justice organization.

Image courtesy of Our Children's Trust

 

On average, one’s utility bill in New York City costs about $75 a month. Of course, the emphasis is on average: If you happen to have air conditioning, or live in one of those lovely but often energy-inefficient buildings found across the city’s boroughs, that sweltering August bill could easily be $200 for even a shoebox of an apartment. And when one’s paycheck is largely going toward rent, any break in the monthly finances are welcome -- especially as the transformation in Brooklyn over the past 15 years has turned it into the new Manhattan.

And it is in Brooklyn where a joint venture between LO3 Energy and Consensus Systems hopes to wean more customers off the local power behemoth known as Con Edison. After its launch was announced last year, Brooklyn Microgrid has been cutting through the red tape of New York City’s electricity system to deliver power generated by solar for residents who live in the neighborhoods of Park Slope and Gowanus. The hardware and software that permits Brooklyn Microgrid to monitor energy consumption and delivery is TransactiveGrid, which is also a joint venture between these two companies.

Con Edison does not have the stranglehold it once had on New York’s utility customers, and indeed recent deregulation has given consumers more choices about which provider they want to keep their lights on. Nevertheless, New Yorkers are still heavily reliant on the city’s ancient and complex grid, a fact of which many residents became painfully aware during and after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. At least 8.5 million people lost power when Sandy hit, and 1.3 million lacked electricity one week after the storm ended. Plus, many owners of stand-alone solar installations received a rude awakening when they found out that they were also, for the most part, shut off during the peak of the hurricane.

Microgrids, however, demonstrate potential to provide power during times of emergencies or extreme weather; those managing such systems can disconnect and connect with the local grid as needed. Furthermore, with the awareness about climate change Sandy helped foment, citizens have the opportunity to score cost-effective, sustainable and secure electrical power.

One of New York’s neighbors took notice: Three years ago, Connecticut became the first state in the U.S. to launch a microgrid program with the aim to supplement its electrical power infrastructure. Similar projects are appearing throughout the U.S. to further test development and deployment strategies. Now this group of clean-energy advocates, engineers and software developers want to generate electricity from renewables for Brooklyn. In the meantime they have received support from companies including Tesla, SolarCity, ABB and Siemens.

Those who advocate microgrids say power systems like this one in Brooklyn can boost local economies while allowing residents to live more sustainably. During times of blackouts or natural disasters, owners of solar installations or wind turbines are free to buy and sell energy from microgrids. They can also be more efficient because of the short distances electricity needs to travel from panel to its final destination; the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that up to 6 percent of the power generated in the U.S. is often lost during transmission and distribution.

For now, Brooklyn Microgrid is running a small pilot program. The project’s managers are asking for local citizens to show their support in scaling this venture, and residents of Park Slope and Gowanus can request an assessment to see whether they can participate.

Image credits: Brooklyn Microgrids, Leon Kaye

Adam (l) and Murray Goodman

"I don't think our customers really care that we're a benefit corporation," says Adam Goodman, the third-generation owner of Goodmans Interior Structures, a furniture and design firm for large commercial clients in the Southwest with annual sales of more than $60 million. "They're mostly looking at the price and our service, not our legal status. Customer service drives our business, because commercial design deals are hugely complex transactions."

The company re-wrote its charter in January 2015, the month Arizona's benefit corporation law took effect. Its mission statement begins with "we will change our community" and goes on for several paragraphs that are full of lofty sentiment. The statement is painted on the wall of the firm's home office in Phoenix, and employees are encouraged to volunteer at not-for-profit organizations on company time. But you won't find the mission statement on the company's website.

"Becoming a benefit corporation was a way of validating that we were doing the right things for the right reasons," says Goodman. "Our values come mostly from my family."

Goodman's grandparents opened their store in Phoenix in 1954. Murray Goodman, Adam's father, ran the business before Adam took over around 2003. Adam says that his dad built the business by cultivating trust and long-term relationships with customers.

Adam cites three events that helped him chart his own course as CEO. "I was talking to a potential customer who said that he was always going to go with the cheapest price. That really riled me up," he says. "I saw that the only way for me to compete was to attract and retain the very best people.

"Around that time, one of our competitors was exposed in the sleaziest kind of scandal you can imagine. It made me wonder how that might reflect on us. And then, at a dealer's meeting, I got into a casual conversation with the CEO of Herman Miller. He said that the most important thing a CEO can do is provide a sense of purpose for employees, so they feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves. That struck a chord."

Herman Miller, a global company with sales of more than $2 billion, manufactures about three-quarters of the furniture Goodmans sells. The company has received dozens of awards for being a good environmental steward and treating its employees well, but Adam says that its policies often don't work for a company his size. He had to find his own way.

Adam announced the company's new mission statement at the end of 2005 and told his employees that their future prosperity would come from a deep commitment to the welfare of its communities. He made significant contributions to local not-for-profits and emphasized team-building activities, like occasional happy hours, inside the office.

Not everyone was thrilled with the change.  "A lot of people were like, 'Can't we just sell furniture?' One guy said that he wished he'd worn his boots to the office because the bullshit was so deep," he says. "I faced a lot of cynicism." But the company's leadership team supported the move, so he pushed ahead.

Then the Great Recession forced Goodmans to make significant layoffs. "All the people who made it through the layoffs — our best people — were also on board with the mission," Adam says. "I think it's because purpose-driven employees give our customers a better experience."

Carrying the banner for community-oriented capitalism in Arizona isn't as lonely as it used to be, he continues. His cousin, Stuart Goodman, led the lobbying effort that convinced the conservative Arizona legislature to pass a strong benefit corporation law in 2014.   "Now I talk to people all the time who are interested in going this route," he says. "They see the business case for it.

"We regularly get calls from highly qualified job applicants who have heard about us and want to work for us. They don't even know if we're hiring. They just want to be part of what we're doing. That gives us a big competitive advantage."

Image courtesy of Goodmans Interior Structures