Search

Editor's Note: A version of this post was originally published on the Greener Fields Together blog.

By Kathleen Weaver

Most consumers believe produce comes shrouded in plastic: perfectly-selected apples presented in a pristine package ready to enjoy. And while anyone eating fruits and vegetables excites me for all the obvious reasons both health- and commerce-related, there is one significant difference between the eater of today and that of the past. Eighty years ago, most folks knew how an apple was grown, which is no longer the case.

Eighty years ago, a substantial chunk of the workforce was employed in agriculture -- equating to 22 percent of workers representing roughly 27 percent of the 123 million people who called the U.S. home at the time. They farmed on small farms in all regions of the U.S., producing mostly for their own subsistence.  However, trends began to shift with electrification, mechanization, and infrastructure and transport improvements, allowing people to seek off-farm work. This is where we see the most substantial change in our food system that until recently remained unchallenged.

The change that happened over the next eight decades was one of regional production concentration: the narrowing of single-farm commodity production and the increase of importation. We find ourselves now with only 2 percent of the population employed in agriculture. And to further exemplify the change, we see that California produces half of America's fruits and vegetables, with the balance made up in importation; 50 percent of our fruit and 20 percent of our vegetables come from overseas.

This current food system is now being challenged by the buy local, eat local revival that’s taken hold across the nation.

From 1994 to 2014, the growth in local farmers markets -- a key indicator in defining the traction that local produce has in the marketplace -- has seen a more than steady rise, with a 300 percent increase in 10 short years.

This growth can be attributed to many things from national-level programming from the USDA and state-led marketing efforts, to a new awareness on part of the biggest, most connected generation of our time, millennials. Representing a third of the population and $200 billion in annual spending power, these Internet-savvy, diverse, educated, community-minded folks are different from generations past in that they want transparency, connectivity and meaning in all exchanges,  including food.

https://youtu.be/5CLfmGo5Fd0

However, the revival is challenged as general consumers become increasingly disconnected from the realities of farming. This disconnect is best described through a visual comparison. The image the millennial consumer conjures when thinking of a local farmer is a young-ish hipster dressed in what I’d deem farm chic, hocking their wares at a downtown market. While in actuality, the average farmer is 58 years old with worn hands and a face that bears the evidence of a hard, less-than-stable life.

This is drastically different from what our imagination or even the marketplace manufactures. Take the recent national ad campaign from the leading organic grocer featuring key producers in all their major departments. The one featuring produce highlights a young farmer in an orchard showing his bounty to the local retail buyer. This advertisement spoon-feeds us the exact opposite portrayal of our current system, thus perpetuating a misguided notion that there is a plethora of young farmers out there growing nutritious and delicious food for you, the consumer, to guiltlessly enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYBESQairis&feature=youtu.be

To become a farmer or make it a viable existence is an incredibly hard pursuit. The food system, as described earlier, works against local farmers. And while current consumer trends create a sense of opportunity, there are many hurdles that a farmer must overcome in order to be viable. Geographical limitations, seasonality, capital access, infrastructure restrictions and market access are just a few of the challenges facing farmers today.

Luckily, the resurgence in local foods gives farmers hope for overcoming what often seems insurmountable. The Central Coast, a hot bed of agriculture activity that is home to produce giants like Taylor Farms and Driscoll’s, is also home to stellar programs that aim to bolster local farmers so they can succeed. Greener Fields Together is a local organization that puts forth programming that supports farmers in their noble pursuits.

Greener Fields Together is a local and sustainable produce program, supporting local farmers by providing good agricultural practices training, food safety audit assistance and market access. Its aim is to help farmers bridge the gap that exists in accessing the wider marketplace. And bridging this gap also means money, in the form of grants, which help farmers make capital investments and infrastructure improvements. In 2016, Cultivating Change, a local farm grant program administered by Greener Fields Together, donated $60,000 to farmers throughout the country so that farmers could focus on farming and, for a fleeting moment, not be burdened by the weight of the food system.

To feed our country now and into the future, it’s necessary to grow the local revival by supporting local producers and programs that offer a chance for the little guy to overcome the limits within the current food system. Knowing the history of food production, the current state of farming and how you, as an eater, fit into it will help us return to our foundation and prove that there are no limits to what local producers can do to thrive in a nation built on agriculture.

Image credit: Flickr/Mobilus In Mobili

Kathleen Weaver is the supply chain sustainability manager for PRO*ACT.

By Sheldon Zakreski

The price of carbon offsets can be quite perplexing. After all, a ton of carbon reduced is of benefit to the climate, regardless of where that reduction occurs or how it happens. If the benefit is the same, then why do carbon prices range from less than $1 to more than $15 per ton?

There are some striking, and perhaps surprising, similarities between purchasing offsets and purchasing automobiles. In practice, most models will get you from point A to point B, but there is a question of quality in how you want to get there. The following is a “blue book” guide to the inventory that can be found in the carbon market and why it’s priced the way it is.

What’s in the sticker price?

The four major components that factor into setting the carbon price for an offset, are also the four things that car buyers look at: make, model, year, and origin.

Make: Credible offsets are certified using a third-party standard that guides how the project is designed and how its performance is measured. The standards most common in the U.S. are the American Carbon Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, and the Verified Carbon Standard.

Model: Just like automobile owners express clear preferences for trucks, sedans, or hybrids, different types of offsets resonate more strongly than others with particular buyers. One deciding factor may include the sector from which the emission reduction originates—examples include: forests, renewable energy, or farms.

Year: The vintage of a carbon offset matters, and offsets with that new car smell are often more attractive to buyers who place a premium on funding future offsets, rather than those that have already occurred. Logically, that means the older the age of an offset, the lower the price associated with it will be.

Origin:  The “made in Detroit” factor also applies to offsets. A close proximity between the buyer and the project’s location can greatly increase a project’s desirability. Both individual and corporate buyers of offsets value projects that occur in their own backyard—streamlining the connection between their business operations and the emissions reductions.

The K-Cars

The “nice, reliant automobile” of the offset market — cars that you can buy even if you don’t have a million dollars. K-Cars can be equated to landfill gas and industrial methane destruction offsets that are abundant in the marketplace, and have vintages that are several years old. Their existence dates back almost 10 years to when a strong economy and strong signals that a federal cap and trade system was on its way, led to a rush of landfill gas and energy projects.

When both the economy and cap-and-trade legislation faltered, the result was a generation of large volume offsets flooding the market. The presence of so many of these offsets — dating back to before 2010 — is why they can be purchased for less than $1 per reduction.

The Toyota Priuses: This car is all about the type of energy it uses, just like offsets from renewable energy projects. Because of their long-standing popularity, price points for clean energy, wind, and biogas projects range from $3 to $8 per reduction depending on vintage and location.

The Volkswagon Buses: This ride has a lot of charisma and usually evokes a journey to a beautiful natural setting. Additionally, unlike most cars, their value appreciates with age and is often tied to features that go well beyond its core function. Forestry offset projects carry many of the same traits as VW buses. Their value holds well as they age, and is determined not just by their ability to reduce emissions, but by the many co-benefits they offer—recreation, clean water, and biodiversity. A driving factor that can suppress forestry offset prices, is the large volume that such projects can generate. That is, very large projects can drive the unit price down substantially because there are often in excess of hundreds of thousands of offsets available for sale following verification. This is why forestry prices range from $5 to $10 per reduction depending on their scale and co-benefits.

The Tesla Model S: Produced, sold, and operated differently than most other cars, Tesla Model S stands out as exceptional in the marketplace. This is the type of car you don't see every day. For the offset market, this is comparable to agricultural offset projects, or a unique project with exceptional social value, such as directly alleviating poverty. You won't find these projects often, but when you do, they'll range in price from $8-12 per reduction, as buyers are willing to pay top dollar for something that is distinctive and aligns with their values.

There are a variety of factors involved in making the decision about what type of carbon offset to purchase and for what price. With such a variance in cost, buyers may be tempted to go with the least expensive option, however, as demonstrated by the comparison with the automobile market, offsets on the lower end of the spectrum will not satisfy the needs of all buyers. Nonetheless, buyers will always consider price as one of the primary decision-making points. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for—in cars and in offsets. If buyers are looking for the perfect fit of personality and performance in offsets, they may have to adjust their expectations.

Image credit:Flickr/Nam-ho Park

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

Editor's note: This post was sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise; opinions are the author's own.

In December, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), in partnership with Globescan, hosted its third Living Progress Exchange. The LPX has become an incubator of both ideas and collaboration, examining how businesses can improve sustainability and how communication and partnership can make a better product that increases customer engagement. The LPX concept is a natural progression for HPE, which has had a longstanding history of seeking and enhancing collaboration with other companies and industries.

In this online forum, HPE asked information communication and technology (ICT) professionals what it takes to elevate their businesses to maximum potential. What is needed to accelerate efficiency in their marketplace? And what generates opportunity?

Participants included a wide array of businesses from environmental, technology, automotive, energy and other sectors and had wide range of points of view. Globescan published two reports on the key findings from the Living Progress Exchange events: Accelerating Efficiency and Accelerating Opportunity. Here's our summary of key takeaways.

Environment, transparency and incentivizing recyclable options

In terms of accelerating efficiency in the ICT sector, environmental costs and remedies were a major consideration for many stakeholders. Hidden environmental costs, participants noted, have the potential to get in the way of productivity.  "Several participants noted that environmental inputs and outputs from operations are often unrecognized costs to business," HPE noted.  "Building tracking and sensor technology into existing systems to monitor resources can identify inefficiencies."

"Valuation should be a lever — environmental inputs and consequences have been traditionally ‘off the books,’" Jacqueline Jackson, the account director for TruCost, explained. "The reality is these impacts and dependencies have costs, and applying a cost in monetary terms to these externalities can have a meaningful effect on decision-making, encouraging more sustainable models and brands."

Transparency is key both in consumer relations as well as the industry as a whole, said Casandra Garber, 3M's sustainability platform manager. "Our customers are expecting our transparency and continued advancement in sustainability in our operations, as well as in how we help them meet their sustainability goals."

Incentivizing and facilitating the renewables option was another area that participants felt the ICT sectors could help improve. "For ICT companies, using renewable sources to power their own operations raises awareness of alternative energy sources and connects the customer with sustainable technology," HPE said. Tech companies can help energize this interest through a number of ways, including:

• Providing infrastructure for smart grids that use renewable resources when available


• Automatically gathering and applying data insights to energy management


• Helping to manage distributed energy and connect customers to renewable generation

Resources and smart use options in ICT Companies

Tracking and accountability was an important issue for some stakeholders. Developing better ways to track and resolve the loss of natural resources like water in piping and cooling systems and Scope 3 and 4 emissions are areas that the tech industry has been developing and is needed. So is technology that helps the building industry reduce waste and improve reuse, said Alex Zimmerman, president of Applied Green Consulting. “Invest in data solutions that support other industries in reducing their footprint, as well as focusing directly on the tech sector," Zimmerman advised.

Not surprisingly, with today's focus on sustainable options, energy efficiency was another key topic of the forum. More use of sensor technology and smart-metering systems, both which have been shown to reduce drain and unneeded expenditure help improve efficiency, as does "smarter" use of data centers to reduce energy use and land requirements.

HPE added to this last point that energy usage in data centers has been a well-known challenge in the ICT sectors. "It’s estimated that in 2015 data centers will have used more electricity than the entire United Kingdom, and that figure that could triple by 2020.

"As the participants in the LPX rightly pointed out, there is an opportunity for the ICT industry to reduce the energy use of its products, even as demand for computing increases."

Increasing opportunities in ICT through inclusion and education

The forum also looked at ways to increase opportunities and access in the ICT sectors -- a topic that has received a fair amount of focus in recent years. The discussion highlighted the fact that "more marginalized (or least connected) countries are becoming more excluded," said David Souter of ICT Development Associates, even though at least 75 percent of the world's population now have cell phones. Bringing less developed countries up to par with current technology advancements will help improve disparity in opportunities and services.

Education access is a hot topic these days when it comes to the ICT sectors, and these stakeholders zeroed-in on the advantages that education provides to the community as well as the industries themselves. Susan McPherson, CEO of McPherson Strategies, said local access is important to improving education in the ICT fields. "Putting a computer in a classroom or passing along smart phones to youth in a developing village is not enough. Whether it's in a classroom or at a place of work, we must partner with local teachers/employees/organizations to deploy training programs that give people the skills and knowledge they need to use technology to its full potential and do so in a sustainable way."

Building ICT solutions "for the bottom -- as well as the top" strata of consumers is also vital, participants said.

"As we think about deployment, I think we have to be thoughtful about mindsets. Often we design for the top 5 to 10 percent. To create inclusive growth, we need to think and design for the other 90 percent," said Lindsay Clinton, director of SustainAbility.

Driving inclusive opportunities, the stakeholders noted, is a multi-factorial process because it is a multi-factorial challenge. Homelessness, unemployment, inequality, lack of access and even job inflexibility play into accessibility issues as much as physical mobility issues and exist in every country.  Identifying challenges first, working locally,  leveraging big data and working toward new business models, and new technology that harnesses opportunities in the Internet of Things are all part of the process of making ICT more inclusive.

"We are living at a time of unprecedented opportunity. Tools that enable disruption, such as cloud computing, mobile technology and big data analytics, are so accessible and affordable, it’s never been easier to turn an idea into a solution," HPE said. "ICT enables us to connect in ways never possible before, to unite people from all backgrounds, cultures, geographies, experiences and capabilities to identify the needs, develop the solutions, break down barriers and drive inclusion. In the Idea Economy, virtually any idea is possible."

Readers can find the full reports here: Accelerating Efficiency, Accelerating Opportunity

Images: 1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise; 2) Globescan

The class-action litigation barreling toward Volkswagen is huge. More than 400 class-actions from 60 different districts across the United States have been filed against the embattled car maker, most of which allege that VW deceptively charged a premium for clean diesel vehicles that were outfitted with "emissions cheating" software.

Last December, that list of class-actions was reorganized by a panel of judges in Northern California, who ruled that the bulk of the cases could be centralized and heard in one federal court. Not surprisingly given the significant number of car owners and lessees in California, the court chose the Northern California District Court to hear those dealing with the presence of "defeat devices" in the vehicles. A small number of cases that addressed other claims (such as whether the lessee should have to continue making payments to VW if it allegedly deceived the consumer) were not included in the transfer.

VW initially requested to have the bulk of the class-actions centralized in the Eastern District of Michigan (it also proposed the Eastern District of Virginia, but for some reason, dropped that request later in the hearing). A slew of other districts were also proposed by attorneys representing the plaintiffs -- a step that, as the Federation of Defense and Corporate Council noted in its blog, highlighted the number of attorneys that were jostling to be lead council in an unprecedented class-action.

The suit charges VW with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It also charges the company with violating the consumer protection laws of every state in the Union and the District of Columbia.

An additional factor in the panel's decision to centralize the class-actions in Northern California was an unusual amicus curae brief filed by the Center for Class Action Fairness. Ted Frank, the founder of CCAF, pointed out that the sheer breadth of filings against VW on this one claim created a "feeding frenzy of me-too lawsuits" spearheaded by "the tremendous windfalls available to the attorneys" appointed to head up a large class. With at least 500,000 U.S. owners and lessees affected by the class-action outcome, the CCAF pointed out, "potential damages are in the billions or hundreds of millions."

But the CCAF also made some points that caused legal organizations like the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel to sit up and take notice. Frank called for the cases to be transferred to Northern California District Court Judge William Alsup, who he asserted "has a unique track record of solicitous concern for absent class members that should be honored here 'to promote a just and efficient outcome.'"

"CCAF asserts that settlement is the one critical area where plaintiffs' counsel and defendants have a 'common but perverse interest,'" explains the FDCC. And that conflict undermines potential relief for the absent class members (those who are represented in a class-action on behalf of the plaintiff launching the class-action).

"[Neither] wishes the transferee court to closely scrutinize the class action settlements that will inevitably be reached to resolve the litigation," said CCAF in its brief.  "[The] structure of class actions ... gives class-action lawyers an incentive to negotiate settlements that enrich themselves but give scant reward to class members, while [defendants have] an incentive to agree to early settlement that may treat the class action lawyers better than the class," CCAF said, hammering home the point with a well-known quote from an earlier class-action that had piqued a judge's ire.

At the center of this massive class-action will be the question of whether Volkswagen should pay punitive damages, something that is usually not awarded in class-action suits. But as CCAF has pointed out, this case isn't likely to be treated like just any class-action, since "the defendant has already admitted some wrongdoing and plaintiffs will be able to piggyback off government investigations of Volkswagen's conduct."

"This case arises out of one of the most brazen corporate crimes in history, a cautionary tale about winning at any cost," Top Class Actions summarizes from the lawsuit filed last week.  “Volkswagen cheated its way to the top of the automotive food chain and spared no victim along the way, targeting its customers, U.S. and foreign regulators, and even the very air we breathe.” Top Class Action is one of many public websites that notify and promote access to class-action cases.

Whatever the outcome of this particular class-action against Volkswagen, one thing is for sure. It's liable to be interesting and landmark. This case will not be about the replacement of a box of cereal or a $10 replacement of RAM for a malfunctioning computer, as so many class-actions are these days.  And since buybacks and recalls were already being considered in the EPA negotiations with VW, it likely won't be about just that, either. Hold on to your hats.

Image credit: Rumble Press

For many reasons, this is a great time to be a renewable energy advocate, and a lot of companies within this sector are happily riding this current boom. Despite the chokehold oil and gas companies have on the economy and the global political system, clean energy continues to grow worldwide -- even here in the U.S., now the world’s largest oil and gas producer.

Despite very low oil prices (never mind the recent small uptick in costs), which many believe is Saudi Arabia’s chess move to demolish energy sectors of countries including the U.S., Russia and Iran, renewable energy technologies such as wind power and solar continue to scale. Renewables have become cheaper, more efficient and more accepted nationwide, from Gov. Jerry Brown’s affinity for solar in California to the wind power boom in Rick Perry’s and Ted Cruz’s Texas. And despite the fact that gasoline is under Michelle Bachmann's $2 a gallon threshold in much of the U.S., the sales of electric vehicles keep increasing.

More corporations are investing in renewables, many states are still offering incentives to invest in clean power, and electric cars keep getting better and better. Even the Middle East oil kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are investing in solar power as they visualize a post-oil future (thanks largely to Masdar). So, the clean energy crowd can declare victory, right?

Not so fast, say a trio of professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago.

In a recent paper, Will We Ever Stop using Fossil Fuels?, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Thomas Covert, Michael Greenstone and Christopher Knittel argue:

“Our conclusion is that in the absence of substantial greenhouse gas policies, the U.S. and the global economy are unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels as the primary source of energy.”

The bottom line in their argument is that, yes, such clean-energy technologies as solar, wind and battery storage have become far more efficient and will continue to improve over time. But in parallel, so has the oil and gas industry here in the U.S. and worldwide. In fact, increased efficiency in exploration is largely what has made America the world’s largest oil and gas producer in recent years. Better oil exploration technology has made it easier to “drill baby, drill.”

In 1949, the odds of a successful exploratory well was only 20 percent, and even drifted as far down as 16 percent 20 years later. But with the discovery of the Alaska North Slope field, that rate of success doubled by 1979. And by 2007, it peaked at 69 percent. That rate is hovering around 50 percent, but one out of two is still a pretty respectable batting average. The result is that the U.S. alone has at least 50 years of oil and gas reserves. If they dry up, well, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has estimated that as much as 93 percent of the world’s shale oil and 90 percent of shale gas are outside the U.S. Improved oil extraction and recovery rates also have bolstered the conventional energy sector.

So, what is the solution if society is going to reduce the risks associated with climate change? The paper’s authors argue that a carbon tax is necessary if the U.S. is going to be serious about addressing carbon emissions — which continue to rise as a stable economy and population growth only keep boosting U.S. emissions. And considering the current low prices of fossil fuels, now -- or really, yesterday -- is the time to do it. Not only would a tax further encourage the development of clean-energy technologies, but it could also offset the cost of externalities that fossil fuels foist upon the economy — examples of which include the increased costs of health care services, along with the expensive infrastructure costs due to rising sea levels.

Considering the fact that the current U.S. president cannot even get a Republican on the Supreme Court this year, the probability of Congress enacting such a tax is about as likely as Jeb Bush and Donald Trump running together on the GOP ticket. But as MIT’s Professor Knittel told his university’s press office: “Taxes on externalities are not inconsistent with the free-market system. In fact, they’re required to make the free-market system achieve the efficient outcome. This idea that a pure free-market economy never has taxes is wrong. The point of the paper is that if we don’t adopt policies, we’re not leaving fossils fuels in the ground.”

Image credit: Leon Kaye

Ever had a job that drove you to sheer desperation? Many of us have. According to 2013 data from the Department of Labor and Labor Statistics, as many as 2 million people in the United States quit their job each month, and for fairly predictable reasons.

But the lion's share of us, I would suspect, wouldn't decide to communicate that frustration in an open letter to the company CEO -- at least not while we're still employed.

Last week's firing of a Yelp employee after she publicly posted a letter to CEO Jeremy Stoppelman to protest her pay highlights once again the hypnotic and deceptive draw of the Internet, where workers may be lulled into thinking that publicly "outing" their company or boss is going to solve their woes.

But it has also highlighted another, more divisive topic: the question of one's right to a living wage. It's a discussion that has, until recently, largely been reserved for the fast-food restaurant sector. This month, however, Yelp -- a prominent Bay Area tech company --found itself squarely in the limelight as one junior employee asserted that her $1,500-a-month salary was only enough to cover her rent, not her food.

"Every single one of my coworkers is struggling," wrote Talia Ben-Ora (aka Talia Jane). "One of them started a GoFundMe because she couldn’t pay her rent."

As audacious as Ben-Ora's assertions may seem, this isn't the first time that Yelp has been outed for low wages. Nor is it the only tech company that pays below the average, although $12.25 an hour in San Francisco pretty much assumes, as Ben-Ora noted, that in most cases the employee won't be able to afford the rent for an apartment. "They’re taking side jobs, they’re living at home," she notes of her co-workers.

What is interesting is the level of condemnation Ben-Ora received for speaking out. Okay, the approach left a lot to be desired. But for many of the 1,300 comments she received on the post and a remarkable number of journalists who weighed in to comment on the story, the import of her message became synonymous with her approach.

"You are an able-bodied young woman who speaks English, holds a U.S. citizenship, and had the privilege of receiving a college education and living in one of the most profitable sectors in one of the active business centers of the world ... This is embarrassing," said one poster.

"I have no sympathy whatsoever," said another. "And for all we know she was terrible at her job, and getting let go was coincidental. If she complains this much in public, and has such poor budgeting and foresight skills, I can only image how good of a customer service rep she is."

For many who read and commented on the letter, enduring a job that pays less than what is needed to survive is a rite of passage that defines one's entitlement to promotion. It's a concept that has helped the fast-food sector to grow as well: the American ideal that struggling in a job (or two) that doesn't pay a living wage will lead to promotion. According to a study by the National Employment Law Project, only about 2 percent of fast-food employees actually make it out of the ranks to managerial-level positions. More than 80 percent remain as cooks, servers and other minimum- or close to minimum-wage positions. Many of the lowest paid either work two jobs, are encouraged to seek social assistance or must find alternative income sources in order to work for their employer.

Fortunately, the living-wage protests in New York and other U.S. cities have trained our attention on figuring out what our expectations should be for employers to meet a living wage index. But interestingly, we still seem to feel that individuals who are in "entry-level" positions in the U.S. forfeit their expectations that their employer will pay them an adequate wage because they are willing to do a bottom-rung job. And that's a catch when it comes to changing the mindset of what employers' obligations are in one of the country's most expensive cities.

Image: Edward Blake

The rapid rise in online shopping and food delivery is creating mountains of cardboard and packaging waste, a problem that, so far, few of these so-called “innovative” companies are trying to solve.

Amazon is the most notorious, particularly for its Prime Service, which incentivizes buying things when you need them, and having them shipped individually, often in boxes in boxes in boxes. But a whole host of new wave, e-commerce companies are even worse: Google Express, Instacart, even the popular fast-food delivery companies such as SpoonRocket or UberEats.

Even the socially conscious e-commerce companies like Blue Apron, an increasingly popular service that delivers the ingredients for a healthy, locally-sourced meal to users' homes, are ignoring this problem. They package each ingredient in a separate box, which they say is acceptable because it's recyclable. And the impact of these companies is only getting bigger and bigger. According to the the New York Times, "35.4 million tons of container board were produced in 2014 in the United States, with e-commerce companies among the fastest-growing users — and the emissions from increasingly personalized freight services."

The common counter is that much of this packaging is recyclable. But recycling, as many have said over and over again, is merely the least-worst option when dealing with waste. It’s better than sending waste to a landfill, and that’s about it. The production, transportation and even recycling all have their own environmental footprints, all of which are growing as more and more cardboard packaging waste is being created.

Another counter argument by supporters of the e-commerce industry is that the overall impact is less certain. If people buy online, they are less likely to shop in a store, hence, less footprint. But the evidence is scarce -- people are just buying more, both online and offline. And this also falls in the same trap -- saying the current system is okay because it’s better than what we all knew was a faulty system. It must be noted that grocery stores and retailers have evolved, charging for bags in many states, using less packaging in cereals and laundry detergents, and providing more and more products in bulk. Some are even trying to reduce food waste.

What we need now is an e-commerce evolution, away from speed and toward sustainability. Amazon, which only recently set up its first Sustainability Office, could put its new staff to use in figuring out how to avoid using so many cardboard boxes. Perhaps, if people are buying products over and over again, the company should provide reusable containers? Imagine Amazon Prime with a “Prime Box” which the company would use to ship your purchases without sending you a new cardboard box every time.

Consumers also need to play a role. Call out companies that use too much packaging, and purchase items together, not separately. If they hear us, they will listen. Otherwise, the mountains of cardboard will only increase, which is not good for anyone.

Image Source: Wikimedia

CEOs are grossly overpaid -- and the earnings of the most overpaid CEOs keeps skyrocketing.  CEO pay grew a staggering 997 percent over the past 36 years, “greatly outpacing the growth in the cost of living, the productivity of the economy and the stock market,” as a recent report by As You Sow reveals. And that disproves the claim that CEO pay is reflective of a company’s performance.

Titled the 100 Most Overpaid CEOs, the report is the second from As You Sow in as many years to highlight the 100 highest earning CEOs of S&P 500 companies. Has anything changed in one year? Last year, pay for S&P 500 CEOs increased, with some estimates putting that increase at up to 15.6 percent. Meanwhile, the value of those companies’ shares “actually declined slightly.” Eleven of the top 25 most overpaid CEOs made the list for the second year in a row, and regression analysis reveals that there were 17 CEOs with compensation of at least $20 million more in 2014 than they would have received if their pay was aligned with performance.

So, why is CEO pay continuing to increase? “The companies are getting signals from large institutional shareholders that are approving this trend,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, in recent webinar on the report.

“The assertion in CEO pay is that you get paid for performance,” said R. Paul Herman, CEO and founder of HIP Investor. “The highest correlation of performance to pay was only 2 percent.”

“Our report shows these CEOs are paid vastly in excess of what would be appropriate for the value that they add,” said Rosanna Landis Weaver, report lead author and program manager of As You Sow’s Executive Compensation Initiative.

The problem with pension funds

“One of our big changes this year was an extended look at public pension funds,” Landis said. Last year, As You Sow reported on shareholder proxy votes by nine large North American public pension funds. But this year the group expanded its coverage to include 32 funds.

What researchers found is that one of the funds with the greatest change is the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), which increased its opposition to overpaid CEO pay packages from 30 percent last year to 47 percent this year. CalPERS has $300 billion in assets under management and is the second largest pension fund in the U.S. The fund with the highest level of opposition (76 percent) is the British Columbia Investment Management Corp. (bcIMC), which manages over $120 billion in pension funds.

The problem is that pension funds are not required to publicly disclose votes, unlike mutual funds. However, there are some pension funds that do disclose their shareholder proxy votes to beneficiaries and the public. The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board states on its website, “One of the most effective mechanisms we have to engage with public companies is voting our proxies. As an engaged owner, we are transparent in our voting activities and implement the leading practice of posting our individual proxy vote decisions in advance of meetings.”

Compensation committees are the ones who vote on CEO pay compensation, and many members serve on more than one board that's allegedly overpaying executives. As You Sow found that 21 directors serve on two or more of the boards it highlights for overpay. As the report states, “A director who has already approved an extraordinary pay package at one company may be seen as a good candidate to agree to a similar package elsewhere.”

Or as Nell Minow, journalist and noted corporate governance expert, said: “There’s no amount of disclosures that are going to tell you what the real connections are.” The connections between board and CEO can make it “difficult to say no to the CEO,” he added.

How excessive CEO pay can be curbed

So, what can be done to curb excessive CEO pay? As You Sow lists several recommendations, including:

• Shareholders need to make sure their assets are voted wisely.


• Mutual fund owners and pension contributors need to hold their fund managers accountable.


• Shareholders need to hold board directors accountable.

Curbing excessive pay is an extremely important task. “When CEO pay is excessive, it is destabilizing to the company,” Herman of HIP Investor said.

Image credit: Pixabay

Corporate lawyers often react negatively to benefit corporations. "I thought the idea was kooky at the first meeting," says William Clark, a partner at Philadelphia law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath. "The law is impractical and unworkable," says Michael Hutchings, a partner at DLA Piper in Seattle.

Clark's first meeting happened in late 2008. His client was Jay Coen Gilbert, the co-founder of B Lab, who hired him to write model legislation for an entirely new kind of corporate form — a benefit corporation, which requires directors to pursue a social mission and minimize their environmental impact while also making a profit.

Gilbert believed in a philosophy of business known as triple bottom line, and he wanted a law that would protect business directors who chose to operate their firms in this way.

At first, Clark was skeptical. "Lawyers are trained to give directors as much flexibility as possible. We don't like to restrict what directors can do," he says. "So, why would we require that directors put a triple bottom line in their charter? Why require annual reports on social performance? Why not just make it something you're allowed to pursue if you want to, instead of requiring it?"

Benefit corporation laws make the triple bottom line into an enforceable contract. They require directors to do things, and they give shareholders enforcement power if directors fail to do them.

In legal terms, laws like these are "prescriptive." But corporate lawyers usually prefer laws that are "permissive" — those that allow directors to take certain actions if they choose to, without giving any power away to shareholders.

Clark eventually became a convert. He wrote the model legislation Gilbert asked for, and the idea spread quickly. Today, 31 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Italy allow benefit corporations. But Clark says that most corporate lawyers still prefer permissive laws, and their resistance has diluted the movement's impact in several states.

Michael Hutchings learned about benefit corporations in 2009, when the law came up at the Washington State Bar Association's Corporate Act Revision Committee, on which he serves. "Our debate was over whether to recommend anything at all," he says. "We concluded that this corporate form is not necessary for a company that wants to pursue social good."

The benefit corporation law was a non-starter, he says. "It would be impossible to consider social benefit in every corporate decision, and it would also be impossible to show shareholders that you did." The committee also thought it overly prescriptive to require the consideration of environmental impact as well as social benefit, and to require an independent third party such as B Lab to make a social audit.

"Legally, it's unworkable," he says. "And we didn't want to pass a law because it's a piece of someone's marketing plan."

The permissive alternative to a benefit corporation law is called a "flexible purpose" or "social purpose" corporation (SPC). This kind of charter allows corporations to designate one or more social purposes. Although it requires their directors to consider these social purposes when making management decisions and to issue an annual social report, it does not require them to consider their environmental impacts, hire an auditor or release the report to the public.

Washington passed a SPC law in 2012, says Hutchings, because "there was a growing demand for it, and the state bar association thought it might help entrepreneurs who want to work in this way. But we didn't want to legislate an appropriate level of goodness."

Laws allowing SPCs have passed in California, Florida, Washington and Texas. California and Florida have also passed laws allowing benefit corporations; Washington and Texas have not. Legislators in Ohio, Georgia and several other states are considering both alternatives now.

Clark says that passing both laws is fine, but he predicts that the SPC laws won't accomplish much. "The problem is that a social purpose corporation doesn't require its directors to commit to the triple bottom line," he says. "The directors of social purpose corporations might not even be aware of the distinction."

About 156 social purpose corporations are active in Washington. Fred Whittlesey, founder and owner of the Compensation Venture Group SPC in Seattle, eagerly publishes his report. His company is also a Certified B Corp.

Becoming an SPC and getting audited by B Lab "is a way of branding the business," he says. "It lets people know my values." The distinction between SPCs and benefit corporations, he says, "is highly technical and not very meaningful."

For-profit businesses that also have a social mission are still mostly small and managed by their founders, who almost always belong to the social movement B Lab is leading. So, the corporate distinction isn't well known, and to a non-lawyer it might not seem important — yet. But Steve Piersanti, president of the publishing firm Berrett-Koehler, sees a big difference.

Berrett-Koehler is a California benefit corporation whose social mission has been audited and certified by B Lab. "A social purpose corporation could devote itself to anything," Piersanti says. "It could be a factory that dumps toxic waste while serving society by giving away free handguns. That would be a perfectly legal SPC. The movement we're part of is about something much bigger."

Image credit: Pixabay

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on B1G1.com.

By Tracy Oppenheimer

One-for-one giving programs through companies like Toms and Warby Parker have instant appeal beyond the quality of and demand for their products. These habitual contributions of shoes and eyeglasses for those in need, respectively, are a clear signal to customers that these companies value making a difference in society. And they are doing just that — by taking action on these values and supporting impoverished communities.

These one-for-one programs are great for the world (and great for external marketing purposes), but their greatness reaches far beyond this overt impact. Dig a little deeper, and we find more and more reasons to incorporate this kind of giving into business. Here's what we at Buy1GIVE1, a global initiative that gives companies the tools to enact effective giving programs, think are the top five:

1. Impact is not limited to linear

If you take a closer look at Toms’ giving programs, you'll discover that the company has expanded the focus on shoes to include eyewear and coffee. Building on that idea, we're now seeing businesses around the world doing so much more. We're seeing accountants giving a day’s worth of education for every new client they gain. Health coaches can give a medical procedure for every session they host. It’s still a one-for-one message, but it’s not just a small group of nonprofits or enterprises affiliated with specific products that benefit. You begin to see that this message and associated giving knows no bounds, and that it can benefit the maximum number of valuable causes with maximum efficacy.

2. Less barrier to entry

Businesses are often reluctant to start corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs because they just don’t have the resources to support such an endeavor. Alternatively, one-for-one programs don’t have to be a huge financial commitment, and they open up the door to small- to medium-sized, and even startup, companies. It can be as little as one cent per every business transaction. And with infrastructure already in place like Buy1GIVE1’s online system, it’s easy to give with a minimal time requirement. Over time, regular micro-impacts add up and your business can have something to show for it.

3. Increased customer loyalty

Sure, customers might initially be drawn to your business or product because they think giving back is great. But your unique giving story also keeps them connected and coming back for more. Once they experience what it’s like to be a part of something that has a tangible impact — like going to get their teeth cleaned or taxes prepared, and knowing that a family in India is getting a goat that will provide sustainable income — it’s a feeling that will keep them coming back for more. Even if the actual business service isn’t the most enjoyable.

4. Same goes for employees

What better way to connect with your employees and create positive company culture than by inviting them to be a part of something inspiring, and adding an extra dimension to their work satisfaction? Businesses can provide their colleagues and employees with the tools to give and pick the company projects that resonate most with them. One Australian health group invites its team members to pick a monthly cause during each of their birth months. Programs like this make work more rewarding for everyone involved.

5. Enhancing what you’re doing well and even when you’re not

On good days, you have more one-for-one contributions and this trickles down to making a more meaningful impact in the world. But even on mediocre or bad days, you can take comfort in the fact that despite less than stellar cash flow or ROI, someone, somewhere is able to eat/sleep/learn/live because of you and your business.

Image credit: Buy1GIVE1

Tracy Oppenheimer is the content director for Buy1GIVE1, a global initiative that gives companies the tools to embed effective giving programs into their everyday business activities. Formerly of ABC News and Reason Magazine, Tracy is now focusing her storytelling abilities on showcasing the amazing things that Buy1GIVE1 and its partners are doing. Learn how to become a Buy1GIVE1 Business for Good and start creating your own 'giving stories' today.