Search

The nonprofit solar provider RE-volv recently closed a $3 million investment to finance solar installations at nonprofit organizations in underserved neighborhoods across the U.S. The investment from the Kresge Foundation and the Schmidt Family Foundation builds on RE-volv's recent contract with the U.S. Department of Energy to help BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color)-led houses of worship go solar. 

A pay-it-forward solar model for nonprofits 

RE-volv is based on a pay-it-forward model for solar energy. Nonprofits can make the switch to rooftop solar with long-term financing and no upfront cost, saving 15 percent or more on their energy bills right away. When these organizations make payments on their panels, RE-volv  reinvests the money into its Solar Seed Fund — which backs more solar projects in more communities across the country, creating what it calls a "revolving fund for solar energy that continually perpetuates itself." 

"Nonprofits provide vital services in the U.S. — from affordable housing to health care, from addressing food insecurity to providing education and job training," Andreas Karelas, founder and executive director of RE-volv, told TriplePundit. "Whatever the charitable mission of the organization may be, nonprofits spend a large percentage of their budget on operational costs like keeping the lights on. By saving them money on their electricity bills through solar, nonprofits are able to put that money back into their mission, better serving their constituents."

RE-volv has installed over 3.5 megawatts of solar capacity for more than 50 community-based nonprofits across 14 states over the past decade, saving these organizations $20 million collectively on their energy bills.

While it's able to solarize nonprofits anywhere in the country, its focus areas for the new investment include communities in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as a push to reach nonprofits in California before a rule change on April 14 will limit savings for customers, Karelas said. RE-volv also works with university students across the country through its Solar Ambassador Fellowship Program, "who are looking for projects to spearhead in their areas," he told us. They'll get some help from new mapping tools developed in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which identify areas and communities where solar projects will have the most meaningful positive impact.

"In particular we prioritize bringing solar to communities where solar is less common, with the goal of accelerating local solar adoption rates," Karelas explained. "With each new project, the Solar Seed Fund is able to provide more nonprofits with solar — planting additional seeds for solar in communities across the country." 

RE-volv's solar finance model is unique in that it exclusively serves nonprofits, but it's not the only way funders are looking to bring clean power to communities that are traditionally underserved. The Kresge Foundation's investment in RE-volv, for example, is part of a broader $7 million package aimed at boosting solar capacity in neighborhoods of color across the country. That includes another $1.1 million to bring community solar to environmental justice groups and affordable housing developments through the Working Power Impact Fund, one of many new community solar deals to hit the U.S. over the past year. 

“Climate change overburdens people of color and low-wealth communities, which are more likely to face power affordability issues, experience intermittent power loss, and live adjacent to polluting energy sources that impact health,” said Joe Evans, portfolio director and social investment officer at the Kresge Foundation, in a statement. “Investing into community-serving nonprofits ensures the benefits of solar will meet communities where the need is greatest.”

Community solar is on the rise

As the name implies, community solar installations are shared by multiple local subscribers, who each receive credit on their energy bills for their share of the power the panels generate. It's a model with vast potential to bring clean energy access to those who can't afford it on their own or who live in parts of the country that are traditionally overlooked and undeserved. 

While the number of new community solar installations dipped in 2022, this model is projected to grow rapidly, with at least 6 gigawatts of new capacity expected to come online over the next five years. 

The Community Power Accelerator Prize, a $10 million competition announced by the Department of Energy in January to increase the development of community solar projects in underrepresented communities, will offer a welcome boost. Designed to "fast-track the efforts" of emerging community solar developers, the prize is part of the DOE's broader Community Power Accelerator that connects developers, investors, philanthropists and community groups to get more community solar projects online.

In total, the DOE aims to enable enough community solar to power the equivalent of 5 million households and create $1 billion in energy savings by 2025 through its National Community Solar Partnership.

“Community solar is one of the most powerful tools we have to provide affordable solar energy to all American households, regardless of whether they own a home or have a roof suitable for solar panels,” Energy Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm said in a statement announcing the Community Solar Partnership back in 2021. “Achieving these ambitious targets will lead to meaningful energy cost savings, create jobs in these communities, and make our clean energy transition more equitable.”

Tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will address many of the funding roadblocks that hold community solar back — and there's already growing interest at the state level. States including Illinois, Maryland, Washington, New Hampshire and New Mexico enacted new laws last year to enable community solar development, and the call for proposals on New Mexico's program has already yielded over 400 applications for new community solar projects. 

Image credit: Los Muertes Crew/Pexels

When Russia began its murderous rampage through Ukraine last February, many top brands quickly cut their ties with the rogue nation. Still, there is more to be done. Russian President Vladimir Putin aims to prevail by a long, drawn-out process of attrition and disinformation. Brands can use their voice in the public discourse to beat him at his own game.

Leading brands exercise the power of the purse

“Russian President Vladimir Putin accomplished the unthinkable when he leveraged his nation’s nuclear weapons capability to launch an unprovoked attack on Ukraine,” TriplePundit observed on March 9 last year. “Most likely he and other leaders in Russia assumed that Ukraine’s western allies would capitulate when faced with catastrophe on a global scale.”

Putin correctly calculated that the U.S., Canada and European members of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) would not send troops into Ukraine, out of concern for sparking a fire leading to a third World War in Europe. Putin also anticipated that Russia’s influence on global fossil energy markets would sideline Germany and other nations.

He did not foresee, though, that the brand reputation factor would come into play. In a display of corporate agility in world markets, the leading global oil and gas companies BP, Shell and ExxonMobil announced they were disengaging from Russia within days after the unprovoked invasion.

Grassroots boycott campaigns also had an impact. Good Lobby and Progressive Shopper are two examples of online indexes that enable consumers around the world to find out which brands have cut ties with Russia. The Yale School of Management also created an index of hundreds of U.S. companies that withdrew or reduced their footprint in Russia within weeks after the invasion.

“We realize that some companies already do business with many other repressive and murderous regimes around the world,” the School of Management team wrote on April 7 last year. “But now there’s a chance to draw a line with one country, over one unprovoked war of aggression, and make a difference.”

Combing through the web of misinformation

Through their voluntary withdrawal from Russia, U.S. businesses provided a significant measure of high-profile, private-sector support for government sanctions, and those sanctions have had a significant impact on the Russian economy. Nevertheless, the war grinds on. The problem now is time. President Putin apparently hopes to cling to the invasion long enough to wear down Western resolve, forcing Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory in exchange for peace.

The prospect of reinstalling former U.S. President Donald Trump or another apparent Russian ally in the White House after the 2024 election cycle is another factor that threatens to draw out the bloodshed and expand the list of proven and alleged war crimes attributed to Russia.

The sanctions and corporate boycotts were just the first, and perhaps the easiest, step in the long process of undermining Putin's power. The problem now is cutting through the Russian disinformation machine, which threatens to erode public support for the alliance against Russia.

Writing for Foreign Affairs in January, Vladimir Milov urged policymakers to look past the disinformation. He listed several areas in which Putin’s claims of a healthier economy are misleading if not outright false.

“Putin has invested significant resources in a disinformation campaign aimed at misleading Western policymakers about the real effects of sanctions. But make no mistake: they are, in fact, hobbling the Russian economy,” Milov wrote. He warned that succumbing to disinformation could lead Western allies to drop the sanctions, providing a “lifeline” to Putin. 

Tearing aside the veil of misinformation, Milov wrote that the sanction are in fact having a significant impact. “Putin’s attempts to improve his country’s financial prospects include import substitution, or favoring the development of domestic industries and reducing reliance on manufactured imports; redirecting trade and investment flows to Asia; and sourcing semiconductors and other goods from countries such as Turkey to circumvent Western sanctions. None of these approaches will solve Russia’s problems,” Milov concluded.

Next steps for U.S. businesses

CNN reporters Jeremy Diamond and Sam Fossum issued a similar warning earlier this week. “A year of unprecedented, U.S.-led sanctions designed to isolate one of the world’s largest economies has left Russia weakened, but not incapacitated,” they wrote. 

The Joe Biden administration is now going a step beyond the macro-economic sanctions to add a micro-economic element, scooping up companies and individuals that do not necessarily have a public-facing brand reputation to protect in the U.S.  “After a year focused on trying to wrangle countries into compliance with U.S. sanctions through a combination of technical assistance and delicate diplomacy, the administration now plans to take its efforts directly to individual companies," Diamond and Fossum reported.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo elaborated further: “If they continue to sell Russia materials in support of their war effort, then they’re not going to have access to the economies of our coalition, which frankly represent a far bigger customer to them.” The Biden administration has already sanctioned about 200 companies and individuals as of last Friday, CNN reported.

Leading brands can also pitch in to raise the pressure on Russia. Even after cutting ties, they can still exercise their influence on popular opinion in the U.S. The corporate voice is more important now than ever before, as Russia has apparently begun to deploy its disinformation resources to raise doubts about the very existence of a war in Ukraine.

That may seem ridiculous on its face, but it is of a piece with the influential Sandy Hook massacre conspiracy theories fostered by Alex Jones and other extremist pundits, who persistently alleged that the mass shooting never took place. Other high-profile examples include the notorious “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory and the rise of the Q-Anon movement, which factored directly into the bloody attempt at insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Disinformation about the existence of Russia's war in Ukraine began to spread suddenly on Twitter earlier this week, where the site’s owner Elon Musk has publicly aligned himself with white supremacists and right-wing extremists. Any brands that still support the site with their advertising dollars should be paying attention to that.

Above all, brands need to fight back against insurrection in all its forms, up to and including the legislative attacks on the civil rights of transgender persons and drag performers spreading across a growing number of statehouses, a movement that is supported on the streets by the Proud Boys and other extremist organizations that participated in the Jan. 6 riots.

Image credit: Mathias Reding/Pexels

As nations around the world seek to measure, manage and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions, many have their eyes focused on the agricultural industry, and New Zealand is no exception. With the New Zealand government’s proposed tax on agricultural emissions, a world first, the local farming industry is now faced with additional considerations to achieve these sustainability goals. 

More than 118,000 people work in New Zealand’s agricultural sector. The country’s booming kiwi business produces about 30 percent of the kiwifruits sold worldwide. Other staple crops include wheat, barley, wine grapes and avocados, but the country’s top agricultural exports center on livestock like sheep and beef and dairy cattle. 

While livestock farming typically comes with a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint, the country’s moves to embrace regenerative agriculture positions farmers to cut these impacts down to size.

Regenerative agriculture practices reduce the impact of beef and sheep farming in New Zealand

The New Zealand landscape is uniquely suitable for regenerative and grass-fed farming, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, a farmer-owned industry organization representing New Zealand's sheep and beef farmers, told TriplePundit. With a temperate climate and abundant rainfall, New Zealand pastures are perennial and used in perpetuity, with high-quality grass for both cattle and sheep herds. 

These unique characteristics also lend themselves to the regenerative agricultural practice of rotational grazing, and New Zealand farmers have harnessed the power of rotational grazing since the 1970s. The quality of New Zealand pastures allow both sheep and cattle to graze in the same pastures at different stages of the grazing process, utilizing the pastures at maximum efficiency with minimal need for agricultural inputs like fertilizer, feed or other chemicals. 

In order to better utilize these unique natural advantages, Beef + Lamb New Zealand aims to help its farmers adhere to sustainable agricultural practices that advance local productivity and increase market returns. 

“Building sustainable and profitable businesses is one of the biggest issues our farmers face today and in the future,” Beef + Lamb New Zealand CEO Sam McIvor told TriplePundit. “Farmers and the agriculture industry are some of the most impacted by climate change, so we collectively invest to support our nation of family farmers and ensure their viability today and for future generations.”

A life cycle assessment brings the impact of New Zealand’s regenerative agriculture practices into focus 

Beef + Lamb New Zealand also aims to better understand the impact of its farmers’ products through the entire value chain, particularly as an industry that exports 90 percent of what they produce. 

To do so, the organization recently commissioned an extensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study with AgResearch to capture the broader picture of the sector’s emission impacts from farm to plate. The LCA study includes data from across the value chain and converts every GHG emission into a unit of measurement known as CO2e, carbon dioxide equivalent, that indicates global warming potential.

While this methodology helps give a comprehensive picture of the emissions associated with a given farm, including methane and nitrous oxide, the assessment also looks beyond the farm itself.

“From the LCA perspective, when you think of an animal, you think of a product that is raised and ultimately becomes meat on the table,” said Dr. Stewart Ledgard, principal scientist with AgResearch and one of the researchers who conducted the analysis for Beef + Lamb New Zealand. “But it's not just the animal — that animal has actually got a breeding system component behind it. There are various inputs that go into the farm system, and we are accounting for the whole system.” 

The LCA revealed that regenerative agriculture practices helped New Zealand sheep and beef farmers significantly reduce emissions, making the country one of the most carbon efficient in the world. When taking into account the entire value chain, the carbon footprint of New Zealand lamb is around 14.7 pounds of CO2e per pound of meat, while New Zealand beef comes to nearly 22 pounds of CO2e per pound. That’s compared to a global average of around 40 pounds of CO2e per pound of lamb and over 100 pounds of CO2e per pound of beef, according to a 2021 research review. 

Communicating with consumers to cut footprints at the grocery store 

While much of its work revolves around farmers, their livestock and the wider industry at a global scale, Beef + Lamb New Zealand also looks to leverage advocacy and research to help consumers make more informed choices. 

Through New Zealand’s Farm Assurance Program, farmers are audited every three years by an independent third party to ensure that both domestic and international food safety standards are met. The Farm Assurance certification also gives evidence-based backing to brand efforts around integrity, traceability, and health and welfare of both farmers and their animals — providing consumers with clear guidance as they shop.

The bottom line: New Zealand is positioned to guide the world’s way on regenerative agriculture

All nations face significant challenges ahead as they look to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions, and New Zealand’s government and agricultural industries are facing these issues head on — offering a valuable example for other countries.

By advocating for the unique advantages of the New Zealand landscape and utilizing a scientific, evidence-based approach to their agricultural industry, this lush island nation is well on the way to ensuring its natural beauty and resources are preserved, while continuing to provide the world with a bounty of high quality agricultural exports.

This article series is sponsored by Beef + Lamb New Zealand and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image courtesy of Beef + Lamb New Zealand

The U.S. is about to get a new recycling plant for lithium-ion batteries. The Casa Grande, Arizona, facility is projected to turn out 10,000 tons of recycled materials annually, with plans to expand as demand increases.

Building domestic recycling capacity is a huge step in the right direction for the U.S. battery sector, as converting to renewable grids and electric vehicles (EVs) will hinge on the industry’s ability to recycle lithium-ion batteries efficiently.

Scaling up renewable energy in the Southwest

The Arizona plant, which is battery recycler Ecobat’s first in North America, is expected to be operational in the third quarter of this year.

It's the latest sign that the Grand Canyon State is emerging as a leader in renewable energy. Together with Nevada and the Navajo Nation, the state is trying to secure federal funds to build a clean hydrogen hub that could go online as early as 2024. Arizona is also home to the Solar Zone at the University of Arizona’s Tech Park, a leading site for research and development that also powers the campus and local grid. 

"With the addition of yet another global battery innovator, Arizona has become a central hub of energy storage and recycling technologies," Sandra Watson, president and CEO of the Arizona Commerce Authority, said in a statement. "With this state-of-the-art facility, Ecobat Casa Grande will enhance Arizona's sustainability footprint while expanding our battery industry and creating skilled jobs."

The downside of scaling up

Of course, more renewable energy and more EVs also mean more batteries. And more batteries mean an increase in the mining of new materials and a whole lot more waste to dispose of — much of it toxic to the environment and human health. As it stands now, the conversion to our carbon-free future threatens to saddle us with another deadly environmental crisis.

Lithium extraction in the Andean region of South America in particular has caused “significant environmental and social impacts, especially due to water pollution and depletion,” according to Friends of the Earth. “In addition, toxic chemicals are needed to process lithium. The release of such chemicals through leaching, spills or air emissions can harm communities, ecosystems and food production. Moreover, lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and also causes air contamination.”

Likewise, the city of Labota in Indonesia acts as a grim warning for a future dependent on batteries and the continuous mineral extraction required to make new ones. Wired’s Peter Yeung reported how the once quaint fishing village has been turned into a sprawling industrial complex dedicated to feeding the EV industry’s surging appetite for nickel. Even worse, the lack of oversight and labor protections at the site means workers are dying.

Yeung quoted Pius Ginting, who co-authored a report on the EV sector's impact in Indonesia for the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. “Labor exploitation, economic injustices, and environmental degradation are undermining the socio-ecological transformation promised by electric vehicles,” Ginting said. “The public needs to know the reality of what’s happening.”

Reduce, reuse, recycle

At present, only about 5 percent of lithium-ion batteries are recycled. Recycling lithium-ion batteries as they reach the end of their lifecycles will be imperative to stave off further environmental damage. The Ecobat expansion in Arizona represents a positive turn toward a more environmentally-responsible conversion to renewable energy. After all, what good is keeping carbon out of the atmosphere if our land and water are toxic instead? 

But recycling alone isn't enough. We must reduce our consumption as well. One way to do that is by investing in mass public transportation, which is much more effective than the “EV for everyone” model that will inevitably cause massive environmental destruction.

Images courtesy of Ecobat

Climate scientists and activists have posted up at private jet terminals in a string of demonstrations over recent months. They’re hoping to draw attention to what they call “luxury emissions.” Unsurprisingly, some of the planet’s most prolific climate philanthropists are among the “super-rich mega polluters" the activists are looking to tax out of the skies. 

Half of aviation emissions caused by one percent

Commercial airlines can carry hundreds more passengers than private jets. Yet, on average, a private jet burns twice as much fuel as a commercial one ⸺ gobbling up 5,000 gallons for each hour in the air, according to the private jet charter site Bit Lux Travel. That’s the same as 400 vehicles driving the road for the same time period. 

To put it another way, just an hour of flight time in a private jet can release up to 2 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to almost a quarter of the emissions the average European resident produces in an entire year, according to the European Federation for Transport and Environment. The Federation also reported that just 1 percent of the global population is responsible for half of all air travel emissions.

“Burning tons of fuel for luxury flights is incredibly unfair during a cost-of-living crisis, and criminal within the context of an intensifying climate crisis," Inês Teles of the activist network Stay Grounded told Euronews.

Activists and climate scientists take action to curb use of private jets

Stay Grounded is a group of activists and nonprofits working to build equitable transportation systems while decreasing reliance on aviation. Members joined other activists from Scientist Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion on Valentine’s Day to block private jet terminals at numerous European airports, including the Bromma Airport in Stockholm, the Luton Airport in London, the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and more, as part of the ongoing Make Them Pay campaign.

You may also remember the January demonstration that blocked access to private jets at the Swiss airport used by many attending the World Economic Forum in Davos. That was also part of the Make Them Pay campaign and held by activists with Stay Grounded member Debt for Climate, which more broadly stands for the annulment of all foreign debt owed by the Global South. The Jan. 16 action followed 11 similar protests in November of last year, where activists demanded bans on private jets.

“It is time to ban private jets and tax frequent flyers to the ground,” Dr. Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA and member of Scientist Rebellion, told Euronews. “We cannot allow the rich to sacrifice our present and future in the pursuit of their luxury lifestyles."

Climate philanthropists are among the biggest private jet users

Yet quite a few self-proclaimed climate philanthropists are guilty of contributing far more than their fair share of emissions by way of private jets. Mike Bloomberg, for example, who is well known for his climate investments and involvement at the U.N. Conference of the Parties (COPs), took 702 flights that released almost 3,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2022. That’s more than 205 average Americans produced in a year, according to Climate Jets, an interactive tracking website created by 17-year-old Akash Shendure. 

Likewise, Mark Zuckerberg, who pledged $44 million to fight climate change last year, took 367 flights in 2022, causing more pollution in 563 hours than 152 Americans did all year. His average flight was less than two hours long. It's also worth noting that most of Zuckerberg’s climate investments are earmarked for carbon capture, which scientists warn is not a viable pathway to net-zero emissions. 

Meanwhile, Bill Gates appears wholeheartedly convinced that his purchase of offset credits that fund carbon capture absolves his guilt over producing more emissions during his 658 hours of private flight time than 197 regular Americans did in all of 2022. "I'm comfortable with the idea that not only am I not part of the problem by paying for the offsets,” Gates told the BBC’s Amol Rajan when asked about climate hypocrisy, but he insisted that he was part of the solution.

But paying to pull carbon out of the air and sequester it underground for an indefinite period of time is hardly the same as not polluting in the first place, which to some only reaffirms that Gates and his fellow billionaires see the climate crisis not as a problem to solve, but as a product to sell. In giving his defense to Rajan, Gates also betrayed his inflated sense of self-importance. "Should I stay at home and not come to Kenya and learn about farming and malaria?" he asked, as if Zoom does not exist. His average flight was just over an hour and a half long.

Taxes and bans may be the only way

Clearly, billionaires cannot be counted on to limit their own emissions to reasonable levels, regardless of how much lip service they pay the climate. Whereas they could be leading by example, they choose to use their private jets like cross-town taxis all the while promulgating the ridiculous notion that anyone with enough money can buy environmental righteousness. 

“I can't stand by watching the emissions from my industry continue to grow and contribute so heavily to the climate carnage wreaking havoc around the world,” Finlay Asher, an activist and aerospace engineer who participated in one of the protests, is quoted as saying in Euronews. “These impacts are mostly felt by the poorest communities, so it's sickening to also realize that an elite minority of super-rich mega polluters are responsible for the majority of global emissions from air travel.”

The Make Them Pay campaign intends to do just that — make the “super-rich mega polluters” pay for the disproportionate amount of damage they are doing to the planet. In addition to demanding an outright ban on private jets, activists are calling for heavy taxes on fuel as well as frequent flyers. 

“The proceeds from this tax should be used to finance affordable public transport for all and climate reparations to those most affected by the climate crisis, who are also the least responsible,” Sara Campbell, an activist from Extinction Rebellion, told Euronews.

Image credit: Stay Grounded/Flickr and Janiere Fernandez/Pexels

The importance of environmental, social and governance performance in business has become the subject of growing skepticism and pushback. But recent research has come out squarely in favor of ESG as a decisive factor for both sustainability and profitability. 

More than 90 percent of S&P 500 companies currently publish ESG reports in some form, according to McKinsey. So do approximately 70 percent of Russell 1,000 companies. For these firms, ESG is considered part of the societal license to operate.

Yet there is concern about over-regulation inside the executive ranks of some corporations, according to a recent CNBC survey. Some chief financial officers (CFOs) said they do not see enough of a correlation between climate data and financial statements. Such skepticism may be what’s behind some of the recent corporate pushback against the upcoming Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate risk disclosure requirements. Reportedly, the SEC is considering revising a component of its climate disclosure rules.

The link between profitability and ESG performance is elusive but present

The Center for Sustainability and Excellence (CSE) conducts annual research which measures how ESG best practices and standards are affecting profitability and transparency. Its latest deep dive analyzed the practices and commitments of more than 310 Fortune 500 companies in North America and Europe — including 31 industry sectors — for the sixth consecutive year. The findings are worth considering, especially for those who remain skeptical of ESG.

While the research found no direct correlation between ESG practices and financial performance or absolute profit among the highest-ranked companies, there is evidence that applying ESG goals along with specific reporting frameworks and ratings results in better financial performance, according to CSE.

“Direct correlation is very hard to prove since there are so many different factors that affect profitability, including inflation,” Nikos Avlonas, president of CSE, explained in an interview with TriplePundit.

“For example, business models and leaders’ decisions on strategic issues are among several other factors that can affect profitability," he said. "However, it's known that intangible assets, including non-financial data, represents about 80 percent of the value of the business, and ESG criteria and data represents a very big portion of the 80 percent. So there is some kind of indirect correlation between financial performance and ESG practices, because these factors represent a very big portion of the value of the business.”

The leading companies and industries 

When it comes to ESG performance, the top 25 companies in CSE’s research are also among the most profitable in their sectors. These include General Mills, Prologis and Prudential Financial, which led the pack in the 10 sectors that came out on top: beverage and food consumer products, health and life insurance, and real estate.

A number of industries trailed behind, including diversified financials, food production, property and casual insurance, metals, and petroleum refining/energy. The leaders in these sectors were American Express, Alcoa, Marathon Petroleum, Newmont, Tyson Foods, AIG and Dominion Energy.

The other sector leaders were: Colgate-Palmolive, Lockheed Martin, S&P Global, Microsoft, Nike, Nvidia, Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Stanley Black & Decker, Starbucks, Truist Financial, Ford Motor, UPS, Edwards Lifesciences, 3M, Target, Cisco Systems, Jacobs Engineering Group, Walt Disney, eBay, Cigna and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

The standout ESG practices among leaders

All of the top performers had these three aspects in common, according to CSE. They averaged high consolidated ESG ratings, as demonstrated by MSCI, CDP, Sustainalytics and S&P Global. They used ESG-related standards — of which GRI, SASB and TCFD are good examples — and they incorporated stakeholder concerns and preferences into their strategies and reports. Finally, their ESG reporting was comprehensive, and they committed to ambitious medium- and long-term quantitative goals. Some 86 percent of top performers have published an accessible, independent sustainability or ESG report.

While adherents of ESG are finding that their businesses benefit in multiple ways, these firms are also looking at the growing investor trend that prioritizes companies with high ESG rankings. Global ESG assets are expected to hit $50 trillion by 2025.

A big push for decarbonization goals, less for transparency

CSE found that 29 percent of the surveyed companies had committed to decarbonization and 50 percent had set net-zero goals. But a lack of transparency in how companies planned to achieve those goals threatens to erode credibility in such ambitious targets.

Avlonas offered a clear recommendation for companies that want to lead in the ESG space: Report progress on climate action annually via the Science-Based Targets initiative, which encourages companies to set long-term targets in line with the latest climate science.

“Right now the Science-Based Targets are the best tool through which companies can demonstrate that they are truly committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and becoming net zero,” he told 3p.

Third-party assurance makes a difference

CSE’s research also found that only 30 percent of companies used third-party assurance for their ESG reporting. So while there might be transparency of data, there is no external verification.

“We get two main reasons from sustainability professionals about why this number is low,” Avlonas explained. "The first is a lack of understanding of the importance of external assurance from C-suite executives. The second is the unjustified high fee from the Big Four accounting firms.”

However, “investing in third-party assurance does provide more points in ESG rankings and enhances credibility,” he added.

While there may always be some skepticism around ESG, the initiative’s momentum seems unlikely to abate. What’s clear, Avlonas concluded, is that doing business in a more sustainable way is increasingly synonymous with doing good business overall.

“Companies we have seen that have not taken ESG seriously face some kind of risk in terms of branding, investors’ preference or in transforming at a time when business models need to be sustainable, he said. "Overall, we believe that doing 'business as usual' is no longer a valid option.”

Image credit: Simone Hutsch via Unsplash