Search

Cotton as a fiber is plant-based and as such is more sustainable than synthetic fibers. It is renewable and supports about 250 million people globally. Worn around the world, over 25 million tons of cotton are produced every year in around 85 countries.

Cotton is approximately 55 percent of the fiber used in clothing and textile production. Over 60 percent of the world’s cotton is grown and produced in developing countries and provides a livelihood for over 100 million farmers. But intensive farming methods are used, such as overusing water and pesticides, and those methods threaten the ecosystems cotton depends on. Cotton farmers are also subject to price fluctuations and increasing input costs. Conventional cotton growing is just not sustainable.

“The indiscriminate use of pesticides is bad for the soil and has human health impacts. It’s generally bad for the community,” Anita Chester, head of sustainable raw materials for the C&A Foundation, told TriplePundit.

By contrast, sustainable cotton is “cotton that’s grown carefully” with environmental and economic aspects considered, Chester said. One standard within sustainable cotton is organic, which does not need pesticides or insecticides and uses less water and energy. It’s environmentally friendly and provides financial security for smallholder cotton farmers. Chester explained that with organic cotton production, “natural methods are used to control pests with no GMO seeds used.”

The problem is that organic cotton only accounts for 1 percent of total cotton production. Organic cotton production has actually declined over the last five years. “Farmers don’t see the advantage in staying organic,” Chester said. “They don’t see a business case.” There are other problems, she added. “Retailers face issues of lack of transparency in their supply chains. There’s a huge fear of GMO contamination.”

Consider that India, a developing country, is the biggest organic cotton producer, accounting for 75 percent of all organic cotton globally. Most Indian cotton farmers are smallholders farming less than two hectares of land. Organic cotton production is certainly not easy for smallholder farmers. However, there is another standard, Better Cotton, which “substantially scaled up in the last five years” and is “an easier standard for farmers to follow,” Chester explained.

With Better Cotton, pesticides and insecticides are used, but the principle is “continued improvement.” In 2014, 7.6 percent of all cotton produced globally was Better Cotton, according to the Better Cotton Initiative’s 2014 sustainability report. The initiative wants that amount to hit 30 percent by 2020 because it believes that “will be a tipping point and lead to transformational change for the entire sector.”

Top international brands like H&M and Nike use Better Cotton in their supply chains and their support increases its penetration in the market. H&M is one of the biggest users of organic cotton in the world. The retailer's goal is for all of the cotton it uses in its products to come from more sustainable sources by 2020. It defines more sustainable sources as being “either organic, better or recycled.”

C&A Foundation has a number of initiatives to help overcome the obstacles to sustainable cotton growth. One of those is the Organic Cotton Accelerator, created in 2013 by Textile Exchange, C&A Foundation, CottonConnect and small group of brands to accelerate organic cotton production. A global initiative, it addresses obstacles to organic cotton production and helps link producers to the market.

Connecting retailers with sustainable cotton production is key. In 2009, C&A Foundation, Textile Exchange (formerly Organic Exchange) and the Shell Foundation founded CottonConnect. Since its launch, CottonConnect has helped retailers buy more sustainable cotton grown by smallholder Asian farmers. It has supported over 40,000 farmers in India, China and Pakistan to reduce both their input and water use.

Working with CottonConnect, C&A Foundation organized an event that brought over 170 stakeholders in the Indian organic and sustainable cotton sector together in March 2014. As a result, the Organic and Fair Cotton Secretariat in India was created, and the foundation supports it financially. The group is made up of Indian private-sector champions, NGOs and other stakeholders. Its goal is to raise awareness and be advocates for more supportive policy framework for organic cotton.

The many benefits of sustainable cotton

Sustainable cotton is badly needed. “No commodity is as polluting as cotton,” declares the Sustainable Trade Initiative. About 10 percent of all agricultural chemicals used globally are used by the cotton sector. It's only grown on about 2.5 percent of the world’s agricultural land. The pesticides end up in groundwater and rivers. They not only get rid of pests but also the natural enemies of those pests, and that interferes with the ecosystem.

Production of the synthetic fertilizers used in cotton farming use 1.5 percent of the world’s annual energy consumption. They cause other environmental problems. The continued application of nitrates on farm land means they produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide. And soils contain carbon, so if soils are degraded they are able to sequester less carbon.

Soil health is what Chester considers to be “the most important thing” when it comes to farming. Sustainable practices help the soil while unsustainable ones deplete it. “That’s an area where farmers must use sustainable practices,” she said. Maintaining good soil helps it retain moisture, and that is increasingly becoming a very important aspect of sustainable cotton farming.

Cotton production is an intensive water user. It takes a lot of water to produce cotton, requiring over 20,000 liters of water to produce just one kilogram of cotton, which is equivalent to one T-shirt and a pair of jeans. Most of the global cotton harvest, about 73 percent, is grown on irrigated land, according to World Wildlife Fund estimates. Climate change is affecting farmers. In developing countries like India, cotton is mostly a rain-fed crop. “Weather patterns are so unpredictable, and when you’re dependent on rain for irrigation you are affected," Chester said. 

Where does Chester see sustainable cotton, both organic and other standards, in five years? “With renewed energy and excitement, both standards, organic and [Better Cotton], will scale up.  Once the demand is stronger and continues to grow, farmers will see the advantage.”

That will be good for cotton farmers, for the ecosystems where they farm, and for their communities.

Image credit: Flickr/Gloria Cabada-Leman

By Barbara Kyle

On Monday, Best Buy announced some significant and unfortunate changes to its electronics takeback and recycling program. First, the retailer has instituted a steep fee of $25 for every TV or monitor collected for recycling. This applies to CRT (tube) TVs/monitors as well as flat panel TVs. It will continue to take other products back for free. Second, it removed the requirement that its recycling vendors be certified to the e-Stewards standard, which is the highest standard in the marketplace particularly on requirements for worker health and safety and exporting e-waste to developing countries.  Certification to e-Stewards is now optional for their vendors.

Best Buy, the largest consumer electronics retailer in the U.S., stated that its goal is not to dissuade customers from bringing back TVs, but it simply needs to cover the increasing costs of TV recycling. The Electronics TakeBack Coalition (ETBC) doesn’t dispute the fact that the economics of TV recycling are bad – there is almost no market for used CRT glass, and commodity values for other materials from electronics (plastic, steel and other metals) crashed in 2015, and continue to slide downward. While we recognize that Best Buy seeks to cover its costs, we believe that most people will find the $25 fee too high, and may be driven to trashing, dumping or using irresponsible recyclers.

In the 25 states with no takeback laws, Best Buy has been pretty much the only recycling game in town, or even entire counties, for electronics recycling, particularly for big stuff like TVs. (Staples has a good takeback program, but it doesn’t accept TVs. Goodwill, partnering with Dell, also offers takeback in many areas, but again, they are increasingly saying no to TVs.) So in many places, the choices for consumers who want to get rid of an old TV have been:  a) take it to Best Buy, b) put it in the landfill (still legal in many states), or c) dump it on the sidewalk or someplace else illegally.

Other big retailers still doing appallingly little

Meanwhile, Amazon and Walmart, the No. 3 and No. 4 consumer electronics retailers in 2014, continue to do nothing very meaningful to help consumers recycle all the products we are buying from them, especially the big stuff like TVs.  These retail giants are part of the enormous marketing engine that drive consumers to buy, buy, buy. And they should be doing much more to make sure all this stuff gets reused and recycled responsibly.

ETBC did a Retailer Takeback Report Card in 2013, which found that other than Best Buy, Staples and Office Depot, other retailers were doing very little. Amazon and Walmart flunked, getting Fs. Now in 2016, little has changed.  We continue to encourage consumers to stop buying electronics from retailers who do little to encourage and facilitate recycling and reuse of old products.

Manufacturers are ultimately responsible

But ultimately, it’s the manufacturers who have the most responsibility here.  While many of them do have takeback programs, most do little or nothing in the states where the law doesn’t require it. Most offer mailback recycling programs, but most consumers don’t use them except for trading in high-value items like smartphones. People want to drop off their old stuff at a physical location, and not bother finding a box and packing it up to ship for recycling. This is particularly true for the big stuff – monitors, TVs, printers and multi-function machines.

Many states have passed 'producer responsibility' recycling laws, requiring manufacturers to take back and recycle old products. But over time, we have seen that with a few exceptions (notably Samsung, Dell, LG and Best Buy) most manufacturers will do only what the law requires, and nothing more.  That means not offering physical collection sites if it’s not required. For states which have annual collection goals, once the manufacturers hit their goal, they stop collecting for the rest of the year. This makes it difficult for consumers who want access to ongoing sites where they can bring their old products.

Another problem is that many manufacturers have been squeezing their recyclers by paying lower and lower prices per pound, putting enormous pressure on an industry that’s already reeling from the drop in commodity prices – the prices for which they can sell the materials in our old products once they disassemble them. A good example of this is the fact that several recyclers have ended up stockpiling thousands of tons of lead-laden CRT glass, because (in some cases at least) they didn’t get paid enough by their manufacturer clients to cover the high cost of responsibly processing it.

Lowering the bar on recycling standards

The second part of Best Buy’s decision was to remove the requirement that its recyclers be certified to e-Stewards. There are two certification programs for electronics recyclers in the U.S. – e-Stewards and R2. Until recently, Best Buy required recyclers to be certified to both standards. Now, they can be certified to either e-Stewards or R2.

Best Buy stated that this was a cost-cutting measure, and adhering to the R2 standard is cheaper for recyclers.  Of course, there’s a reason for that – R2 is a less rigorous standard. So to save money, Best Buy may be working with vendors that are less diligent about where their stuff goes and how it’s processed.  In other words, their costs could be easily externalized to poor communities in developing countries.

What should Best Buy do?

ETBC is disappointed by Monday’s news from Best Buy, who has been a leader on takeback and recycling for many years. But we recognize the larger economic conditions that have led the company to look for cost-cutting options. (Although we do think it should not charge consumers who bring back any of Best Buy’s house-branded TVs.)

The solution here would be for the manufacturers – particularly the TV companies – to visibly partner with Best Buy to cover some of the recycling costs, and to make sure that responsible recycling occurs. The TV companies, which are always challenged by finding collection sites, could take advantage of the chain’s huge network of stores, which are very convenient collection points for most consumers. This would be an ongoing national partnership program, in every state, in every store, co-marketed by the retailer and the industry.

This could also be established with Walmart and its huge network of stores. While Amazon doesn’t have stores, there are many ways in which it could help to be part of the solution.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

Barbara Kyle is National Coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

TriplePundit is tracking the ongoing drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Follow our coverage here. 

After months of hearing their pleas for help fall on deaf ears in the state government, Flint, Michigan, is finally receiving help from people all around the country.

For those who aren't familiar with what's going on in Flint, here's the backstory: In April 2014, an emergency manager appointed by the governor switched the city's tap water source from Lake Huron to the more corrosive Flint River. After more than a year of complaints and increasing lead levels, the state finally declared the water unsafe in October 2015 and switched back to Lake Huron water -- but the damage to the city's pipes is still contaminating the water supply.

The biggest item being donated, obviously, is bottled water. Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Pepsi and AQUAhydrate (a company owned by Mark Wahlberg and Sean Combs) have all lined up to send water to Flint. Wahlberg and Combs initially pledged to send 5,000 cases, and say they will continue to send water until the city's water issues are resolved. Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Pepsi will send 176 truckloads of water, including enough for the city's 10,000 schoolchildren to drink during school hours until the end of 2016.

To date, Coca-Cola has donated around 78,720 bottles of Dasani to local food banks and foundations. Nestlé Waters North America has donated five truckloads since October 2015. Walmart has contributed 14 trucks of water and 1,792 water filters since July 2015, three months before the state admitted there was a problem.

Many other companies, cities and individuals have also stepped up to send water, including Cher and Icelandic Water (181,000 bottles of water), and Craigslist founder Craig Newmark has pledged to donate 100 cases of water for every $20 donated on crowdfunding site CrowdRise.

Detroit Pistons owner and CEO of Platinum Equity, Tom Gores (a Flint native), pledged to begin a campaign to raise at least $10 million for Flint residents. The campaign will also supply resources to help with a range of short- and long-term initiatives, including immediate support and funding to help the children affected.

Jimmy Fallon threw down a challenge in a tweet, pledging $10,000 to the Community Foundation of Greater Flint, and calling on other celebs to do the same.

Madonna, Jon Cryer, Rosie O'Donnell and Saturday Night Live alum Seth Meyers all matched his gift.

Detroit native and R&B singer Kem donated $10,000 to the Salvation Army in Genesee County, Alt-rock group Pearl Jam pledged $100,000, and Aretha Franklin pledged rooms and food for 25 to 50 Flint residents (after a screening process) at her father's church in Pontiac.

Nonprofits, schools and communities around the state and nation have also worked hard to gather supplies to send.

However, the water burden might increase, if that's possible. Since October 2015, officials have advised Flint residents to use bottled water or filter their tap water. However, recent tests show that the lead levels in the water in 26 testing sites (out of 4,000) in the city might be too high for the water filters to be effective, and on Jan. 30, officials again urged all residents to get their water tested to see how many other sites might still show high levels.

The water tests came back with levels between 153 ppb (parts per billion) and over 4,000 ppb. The filters are rated up to 150 ppb. The filters are still effective for the majority of water which tested below 150 ppb (below 15 ppb is acceptable by EPA standards but no amount of lead is considered safe), but officials are urging everyone to get their water tested and say that pregnant women and children under 6 should only drink bottled water. There are water-testing kits at city hall and every fire station, and residents can even bring in water and have it tested for them.

All the water bottle donations to the city bring with them another issue -- recycling to avoid excessive plastic waste. The Flint recycling program is only three years old, and until now, only about 15 percent of the 40,000 residents participated, but Gary Hicks of Republic Services (the company contracted with the city) says that 75 to 100 people a day are calling about the service and hundreds have signed up.

Young's Environmental waste management is also offering to help with the problem free-of-charge. The business has a roll-out box in front of its corporate headquarters where residents can drop off their empty water bottles to be recycled.

Instead of so many little bottles, it would be nice if larger, reusable containers could be delivered (perhaps some already are), or if a company like Klean Kanteen donated reusable bottles and containers the residents could use over and over again.

But will these donations, generous as they are, be enough? With lead levels still high, even reconnected to the Detroit (Lake Huron) water system, the Flint tap water has ongoing problems and Gov. Rick Snyder has no plans to replace the pipes. Instead he plans to rely on using phosphates in the water to coat the corroded pipes and keep the lead from leaching out -- the exact process that was not used in the first place. And that doesn't seem to be working. Experts have said that replacing the pipes is "the only permanent solution to the lead problem," but Snyder said it wasn't on "his short-term agenda."

"It's a lot of work to take out pipes, to redo all of the infrastructure, that's a whole planning process," Snyder said at a press conference.

So, when will the water be safe to drink again? Without an idea of how to fix these most recent high lead level problems, resolving the issue seems far away. Will these and other donations be enough to help the residents of Flint for what looks like a long road to clean tap water? What happens as the months and possibly years go on and this crisis fades from the spotlight? What will the residents do when they are forgotten again and the problem still isn't fixed?

Here are some links where individuals can help Flint residents:

• Local resources


• Good360.org

Image credit: Flickr/deepay

By Roshan Mohan and Stephen Thompson 

Across the globe, many countries, states and provinces are blessed with abundant natural resources. Ontario, Canada, is one of them. The gift of natural resources and the revenue derived from them, such as hydrocarbons and minerals, help drive economic growth, spark innovation, create employment and provide much-needed tax revenue. However, this story can become a cautionary tale, as an over reliance on natural resources can be detrimental if a long-term and sustainable strategy is not embraced.

Ontario’s journey of diversification and evolution from a petrochemical pioneer to a bio-hybrid chemistry leader provides ample lessons learned and a useful case study for other economies looking to travel down this path.

So, how did Ontario do this? The province has been involved in petrochemicals since the discovery of large oil reserves in the late 1850s. This led Ontario to be a global chemical and petrochemical leader. The province gradually embraced a strategy to evolve and gradually diversify, transforming from a petrochemical pioneer to a global leader in petrochemicals with an innovative biotech sector.

For example, the Sarnia-Lambton district is home to global players from the oil, gas and petrochemical industry, such as Lanxess, Shell, Exxon Mobil and DuPont, all of which have invested in the area. Located in southwestern Ontario, Sarnia-Lambton houses Canada’s largest concentration of chemical and biochemical companies – one of the largest of its kind. With an increasing emphasis on researching and commercializing biotechnology, in addition to its strengths in classic petro-technology, Sarnia-Lambton has now become a unique bio-hybrid chemical cluster.

What are the secrets behind this success? What are the lessons learned?

1. Offer support through partnerships and funding


2. Invest in advanced and targeted education and training and


3. Create collaborative hubs and clusters with research and development, manufacturing, education and training, marketing and distribution, within close proximity.

1. Offer support through partnerships and funding

Industry trade groups comprise the core of Sarnia-Lambton’s chemical cluster and are crucial to the region’s success. The Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership, for example, was formed in 1994 to provide strategic leadership and support to aid in community-based economic development through the private-public partnership. The organization helps companies in the early stages of development find work sites and facilitate approvals. In addition, it helps connect new graduates and skilled workers with companies, while standardizing safety training for all workers in the region. The Partnership, in conjunction with the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance (SCA), has also invested in sustainable technologies and organizations, such as GreenCentre Canada, GreenCore Composites and Solutions4C02, enabling the new sector to flourish.

The Western Sarnia-Lambton Research Park offers both multinational companies and start-ups an attractive location for research, development and the commercialization of innovative technologies. Associated with Western University and Lambton College, the Research Park is where innovative ideas and lab discoveries become market commodities. The research park was ranked seventh in the North America Top 10 University Business Incubators in 2014 by UBI Global.

As a government and industry-funded catalyst for industry development, Bioindustrial Innovation Canada (BIC) also helps position the Sarnia-Lambton region as a world-class hybrid chemical cluster. BIC manages an investment fund to provide essential capital to early start-ups. Early stage funding is crucial for young firms and enables them to refine their business models and attract larger-scale follow-up investments. To date, four Sarnia-Lambton-based companies that received early BIC funding have successfully raised more capital through public offerings. This support attracted new minds and companies to come to the Sarnia-Lambton area, aiding in the overall transformation of the region.

2. Invest in advanced and targeted education and training

Education was made a priority in southwestern Ontario, to ensure the bio-hybrid chemical industry continues to grow and develop. Through its co-op program and strong industry collaboration, Lambton College provides a unique opportunity for students to get hands-on experience in the chemical industry. The Centre of Excellence in Energy & Bio-Industrial Technologies at the college gives industry partners opportunities to participate in applied research and program capstone projects that are faculty-led and involve students. By providing this integrated educational experience, students leave the program with in-depth knowledge and experience in their fields and can bring fresh, innovative perspectives to the industry.

BioAmber, the world’s largest producer of succinic acid, has a state-of-the-art $140 million plant located in Sarnia, and has been able to take advantage of the area’s readily available, skilled workforce, who is trained and educated in chemical processes. The company uses cutting-edge biotechnology to sustainably produce succinic acid from glucose instead of fossil fuels. Its strong workforce is one of the reasons BioAmber has become the first bio-succinic acid plant to reach commercial production, globally.

3. Create collaborative hubs and clusters

The companies in Sarnia-Lambton are located within close proximity of one another, further enabling collaborative innovation. This allows companies in the region to share a number of resources, including steam, waste water and infrastructure (rail, water and roads).

The Lanxess Bio-Industrial Park, for example, owns a 500-acre site with established infrastructure including warehousing, a deep water dock, road and rail transportation, as well as behind-the-fence power with large brownfield and greenfield development sites available to other companies. BioAmber chose the Lanxess site to develop its first plant, in order to capitalize on the available infrastructure and ultimately reduce set-up costs.

The region is also connected to an extensive pipeline system bringing oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids from all over North America to the province. Moreover, the area is rich in agricultural and wood biomass feedstock, affording companies reliable access to raw materials.

By offering support and funding, investing in skilled labour and facilitating industry collaboration, true transformation is possible for other regions in a similar position. Ontario has shown itself as a key leader in the biotechnology industry, setting the course for regions interested in shifting from a traditional resource-based economy to one that is both sustainable and highly competitive.

Industry snapshot: Chemical and biochemical industry in Ontario

• Ontario is home to Canada’s largest chemical manufacturing cluster


• The chemical industry employs 27,000 people in Ontario, making it the fifth-largest in North America


• The industry’s annual output is $16 billion (2013), ranking ninth in North America


• Chemical products from Ontario range from industrial chemicals and synthetic resins, to fertilizers, and petroleum; refining also happens in the region


• Located in North America’s industrial heartland, Ontario is within a day’s drive of 141 million customers


• As a part of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), Ontario businesses have access to a $20 trillion market

Image credit: Flickr/Jerry Huddleston

Roshan Mohan and Stephen Thompson are Consuls and Senior Economic Officers who lead the Ontario International Trade and Investment offices in New York and San Francisco. They promote Ontario in the U.S., assist American companies to setup operations in Ontario, and help Ontario companies forge partnerships and export to the U.S.. The New York office covers New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Greater Boston and Greater Chicago. The San Francisco office covers California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii.

By Robin Ganzert

In watching "The Revenant," the jaw-dropping scene of a horse going over a cliff brought back recollections of the dismal state of animals in Hollywood just over 75 years ago. In 1939, the movie "Jesse James" featured gut-wrenching scenes of horses being driven off cliffs to their deaths just for the sake of making a movie.  Animals in entertainment were not assured protections and humane treatment until the creation of American Humane Association’s iconic No Animals Were Harmed entertainment end-credit certification program in 1940.

Having achieved a milestone of 75 years of working alongside the industry as the voice for the animals, Americans have come to expect protections for working animals. Having received thousands of calls from animal lovers over the recent years asking about the safety of animals in movies, and recently calls about the safety of animals in "The Revenant," we can attest to the fact that the movie-going public is genuine in their affection for animals. And, animal lovers around the world seek out the No Animals Were Harmed end credit before they buy a ticket for an animal action movie.

While the American Humane Association was not invited to be on the production of "The Revenant" to verify the safety of the animals, we were informed that the animal action, including the horse scene, was CGI (computer-generated imagery) – a significant advancement in film production for such fierce animal action. That’s somewhat of a relief for those of us tasked with ensuring the protection of animal stars, especially given the extreme action portrayed in the Leonardo DiCaprio film. However, the importance of such efforts as the No Animals Were Harmed end-credit certification is that independent, third-party animal welfare experts provide the general public with assurances that are verifiable.  It’s just not enough in today’s times for any corporate institution to say to the public “trust us” when it comes to animals.

We’ve come a long way in filmed entertainment production over 75 years. All of us need to work together to further ensure that our beloved animal stars are kept safe and that they are protected in the ever-expanding arenas of production, including the rapidly expanding numbers of overseas shoots, smaller video productions and reality shows where animals still do not enjoy sufficient safeguards. Thanks to the public’s clear and demonstrable desire, we will – and must – continue to make progress in ensuring that in the creation of movies, television programs, and commercials No Animals Were Harmed.

Image credit: Wikimedia

Dr. Robin Ganzert is President and CEO of American Humane Association, the country's first national humane organization.

By Mark Meyers

When we think about the overflow of our nation's landfills, we probably picture limiting our food waste; recycling plastics, glass and paper; and keeping out potentially harmful hazardous waste. What we probably don’t consider is one of the largest sources of waste generation, construction and demolition (C&D) waste.  It is estimated that anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the national solid waste stream is building-related waste, with only 20 percent of C&D waste being recycled.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated, in 2003, that 164 million tons of building-related waste was generated in the United States annually. Those are pretty staggering numbers.  But, how can we scale these down to understand the amount of construction and demolition waste generated in a typical building project?

A standard new building project produces an average of 3.9 pounds of waste per square foot.  To put this in perspective, a mid-sized 50,000 sq. ft. office building will produce 195,000 pounds of waste. That’s almost 100 tons! If that project first includes building demolition, then these figures increase dramatically. This same 50,000 sq. ft. building will now be responsible for creating 4,000 tons of waste, or a staggering 155 pounds per square foot.

The modular environmental advantage

With the rise of modular construction as an affordable and efficient alternative to traditional construction, there is now a sustainable option for keeping tons of waste out of our nation’s landfills with each new build.

Modular buildings are designed and constructed as individual sections, called “modules.” The individual modules are fabricated off-site in a manufacturing plant using traditional assembly-line methods. Once the modules are built they are individually transported over the road to your construction site, and fitted together in a pre-planned order creating a finished building of any size.

The unique advantage of modular construction is that site preparation occurs simultaneous with building production at the factory.  Conventional site-built construction is often constrained by having to wait for site preparation before erection of the building can begin. This allows for a significant reduction in time to completion and occupancy.

Less material waste

In contrast to the excessive amounts of waste produced using traditional construction methods, the basic concepts behind modular construction promote efficient use of building materials.  Recent reporting from the Waste & Resources Action Program (WRAP) shows that a 90-percent waste reduction can be achieved by increasing the use of off-site construction.

With off-site construction, module units are assembled in a controlled manufacturing environment. This reduces material waste associated with poor weather conditions and construction site theft. Furthermore, excess materials from one project can be re-purposed or used on other buildings coming through the manufacturing plant, instead of being discarded at the end of a project, as they may be on a conventional construction site.

Following the off-site manufacturing process, the modular units are delivered to the construction site up to 90 percent complete.  Reducing the work performed on-site significantly limits construction waste that may be generated on the project site where it often is difficult to gather, retain, protect and re-purpose building materials.

Built for deconstruction, not demolition

Prefabricated buildings all but eliminate waste generated from demolition. Modular building systems are a prime example of recycle, re-purpose and reuse.  They are flexible, adaptable and essentially built to be un-built.

While a growing segment of modular construction is geared toward permanent construction (modular constructed structures not intended for relocation, just like a conventional building), many businesses still rely on temporary use of modular buildings.  Relocatable buildings are brought on-site when expansion space is needed quickly, or as swing space to house students, patients or employees during a remodel or emergency situation.  When extra space is no longer needed, the modular building is removed from the grounds and re-purposed for reuse.

Unlike traditional construction tactics, the modules are not demolished and materials are not tossed into local landfills following a single use.  Instead the used modules are refreshed, so they can be reworked and used in future projects, further decreasing the need for additional raw materials and energy to create something new from scratch.

When greener, sustainable building practices are a priority for a company, they are turning to modular construction over conventional construction for their expansion or new building.

Image credit: Vanguard Modular 

Mark Meyers is the Vice President of Marketing Services at Vanguard Modular. Mark joined team in 2001 progressing through the organization primarily through his ability to adapt, think outside the box, and communicate clearly across all levels of the organization. Mark continues to push the envelope, developing new ideas for Vanguard Modular and acting as a devoted spokesperson for the green and sustainable building practices that modular construction offers.

By Sam Wolf

When a business manufactures its own goods, it’s easy to maintain control over production values. The company can oversee everything from ingredient sourcing and labor to packaging.

But for mission-driven retailers, the task is much more complicated. With so many brands in the health, wellness and sustainability markets, how do you cut through the buzz to select the best products?

A company must have guiding principles as it evaluates the large selection of items available for distribution. Before vetting merchandise, the retailer must clearly identify what it represents and where it draws clear lines.

Third-party standards are key in product selection. However, the clarity and availability of these standards vary greatly within different product sectors. For instance, organic food is standardly defined by the USDA label. But while Non-GMO Verified is a trusted label, it is not the only one that identifies a GMO-free product.

For personal care products, appliances, housewares and gadgets, there are very few clearly-defined certifications or standards. Retailers must vet the quality of manufacturing and production as well as the company’s testing practices and the overall reputation of a brand.

There are dozens of third-party certifications, and most have some degree of value. But it depends greatly on the values of the individual consumer. For instance, my company, LuckyVitamin, features brands that are local or made in the U.S., but also believes in fair-trade initiatives and helping to develop better trading conditions in developing countries by promoting sustainability. The company supports all types of diet choices, whether vegetarian, vegan, gluten free, raw, kosher, paleo or still undecided.

Retailers also must decide how much they will let customer demand influence their inventory. You want to be able to supply customers with what they want in a convenient fashion so they don’t shop elsewhere, but at the same time can not provide everything for everyone. How far are you willing to waver outside of your standards without being put outside your comfort zone?

It’s also important to realize that standards evolve, and what is considered important today may not be relevant tomorrow as new studies and information come to light. A thoughtfully curated product catalog is bound to fluctuate, and should be recalibrated as standards evolve.

Overall, the key to a carefully-crafted product selection is transparency. No matter what category you are selling, each brand should be able to provide full ingredient transparency and work with the third-party testing groups available in their industries.

Retailers’ standards may vary, but the consumer should always have accurate information provided to make a choice based on their personal values.

Image credit: Pixabay

Sam Wolf is the Founder and Chief Wellness Spreader at LuckyVitamin, a family operated branded global e-commerce destination for affordable natural health and wellness products. Sam takes pride in spreading wellness by leading the LuckyVitamin team as they work to provide customers with the best natural products, health information, outstanding service and shopping experience supporting their wellness journeys. Learn more at www.luckyvitamin.com.

Diversity tends to be a very hot topic on the web and in the news. It has been for decades. You would think there would be more movement in this direction, and while we gain inches here and there, women still make less than men in the workforce, and both women and minorities represent a meager percentage of CEOs, writes Rita Trehan.

While this looks like it would bankrupt companies to make these gender biased odds more even, the simple math is that it would actually cause companies to perform better. A recent McKinsey study states that while they can’t immediately tie diversity to profit, they can most certain confirm that companies with a focus on diverse leadership are 35% more likely to outperform competitors that don’t, stating:

“While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful. More diverse companies, we believe, are better able to win top talent and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision making, and all that leads to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns. This in turn suggests that other kinds of diversity—for example, in age, sexual orientation, and experience (such as a global mind-set and cultural fluency)—are also likely to bring some level of competitive advantage for companies that can attract and retain such diverse talent.”

The main argument against diversity is that companies claim that they’re just too hard to find, that finding females and qualified minority talent is just too hard to create that diverse slate needed to fill open positions. I’m here to debunk this myth. There are two ways to create a sharp slate of candidates: make the slate yourself and/or buy it.

You can make a slate of diverse talent ripe for your own efforts by nurturing your leadership pool from within. Look among your ranks, and discover what it would take to turn your current employees into the leaders of tomorrow. Surely, there are diverse members of your own team who could be grown into formidable, client-focused leadership in due time. Make the long-term investment in your own future.

Conversely, you could buy talent, which means recruiting efforts. Silicon Valley has gone so far as to create The Boardlist, a database of the top 600 females in the industry who are ripe for top leadership and board positions within the industry. Created by Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, it came in response to the complaint that startups don’t have the resources to do the research to find these women, so Cassidy made it easier for them. Such lists exist throughout the internet and among top MBA programs everywhere. Stanford, Cornell, Columbia, Darden, Wharton – all of these schools have records of diverse graduates who would make top notch connections and candidates. Start there.

All of these decisions are the keys to corporate capacity. In my forthcoming book, I discuss quite a few strategies for HR to solve the problems of their companies, and this is one issue that deserves top attention. It’s not just a softer “feel-good” initiative: it makes good business sense. In an increasingly diverse world, companies who can show that all kinds of backgrounds, genders, and orientations have pathways to success within their ranks will remain market competitive with both clients and candidates. It’s just good business.

Diversity is the pathway to current and future corporate capacity. Aim to make it a top line item moving into your next board meeting, and prepare to meet the demands of the global — and diverse — marketplace.

 

Rita Trehan is the former HR at Honeywell and The AES Corporation and current vice chair of the Cioindex Inc. Women in Technology Leadership Special Interest Group (SIG).

Value fashion retailer Primark is to partner with the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK to improve working conditions for garment workers in developing markets.

The company says the partnership will combine the presence, networks and expertise of both organisations to improve the health and wellbeing of local workers, bolster national economic development and help alleviate poverty in five of its key markets. Currently Primark works with 700 suppliers across its supply chain, many of which are in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Burma and Ethiopia.
From providing gender equality training in garment factories to training female nurses, a large part of the yet-to-be finalized programme will focus on creating positive change for women working in the developing world.

Paul Lister, responsible for Primark’s ethical trading team, told Ethical Performance that the company was committed to making a difference: “Primark recognises that no one retailer alone can have a positive impact on an entire industry, which is why it operates in collaboration with other retailers, trade unions, charities, international organisations and government bodies to raise standards. This partnership with DFID is part of that collaborative approach.”

The Primark ethical trading team is based in the UK, Germany, Turkey, Bangladesh, India, China, Pakistan, Cambodia and Vietnam and is supported by a wide range of external organisations, including auditors, NGOs, and project partners. Improving ethical standards in factories and throughout the supply chain is an ongoing process, maintains Lister: “Primark is like nearly every other retailer, from high street brands to designer labels, in sourcing its products from the developing world. In doing so, we share the same challenges around ensuring good working conditions and that the factories in which people work are safe.”
Lister says the company has plans to increase the ethical trading team to more than 70 in the coming months.

Given that the ink has only just dried on the formal partnership, Primark is still in the process of defining the joint goals, but Lister emphasises that the ultimate goal of both Primark and DFID is to improve the working and living conditions of workers and communities in developing markets.

He points out that the partnership will concentrate on achieving transformative change across three key areas: women’s economic empowerment, the creation of new ethical garment sectors in areas such as Burma and East Africa and sharing lessons from the Rana Plaza disaster.

On this point, Lister says that through the partnership, they will look at how brands, retailers and organisations can respond to industrial disasters: “We put in place a proper, long-term compensation scheme based on medical assessments and internationally recognised standards for victims and/or their families, with payments taking into account injury, loss of earnings, and vulnerability.”
Alongside DFID, Primark will take part in information sharing events such as those hosted by the ILO or Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) .

On the issue of female empowerment, Lister acknowledges the challenge ahead: “Trying to effect gender balance is as much about changing male attitudes as educating and empowering women. Gender balance change isn’t something we can tackle alone, but it’s important that we collaborate with other stakeholders, like the ETI and DFID to play our part in creating change.”

International Development Minister, Desmond Swayne commented: “It is vital that the world’s poorest people can benefit from the opportunities of an increasingly globalised world. That is why the UK is committed to helping British businesses to have a positive impact in developing countries.

“By creating jobs, UK companies can strengthen economies. This new partnership with Primark means we can build ethical and sustainable markets to help the aid recipients of today become tomorrow’s trading partners.” 

Six large companies have joined Canadian scientists in a consortium to promote the use of tree waste biofuels by airlines.

A study backed by the US aerospace manufacturer Boeing has already found that branches, sawdust and other waste from the forest industry could produce enough biofuel for 10% of British Columbia’s jet fuel demand.

The study added that biofuel, if used by ground and marine vehicles in the province, could cut carbon dioxide emissions by a million tons annually.

The new project will consider how to produce larger amounts for use at Canada’s main airports and for ground transport.
The consortium is an alliance of British Columbia University, the Vancouver engineering company Noram, Air Canada, the Canadian low-cost airline WestJet, the Canadian aerospace company Bombardier, SkyNRG, the Dutch sustainable jet fuel specialist, and Boeing.

The researchers need to perform flight and other tests before governments will authorise airlines to use the wood-derived biofuel. At present there are no target dates for reports to be delivered.

An undisclosed sum to finance the project has been provided by the Green Aviation Research and Development Network, a non-profit collaboration between the Canadian government and the country’s airline industry.

Boeing has concentrated on biofuels for several years. In 2012 it flew an airliner across the Pacific powered by a mix of regular jet fuel and biofuel derived mainly from used cooking oil – known in China as “gutter oil”. As a result it formed a partnership with China’s Commercial Aircraft Corporation and established a pilot plant at Hangzhou to produce the
new fuel.