Search

By Jamie Beck Alexander

The fight against climate change is a fight for life. Reproductive rights aside, we are all pro-life in the sense that we want the healthy, vibrant continuation of life on Earth. Yet a large swath of the American public still feels disconnected from the historic climate change commitments made a month ago in Paris. And political obstacles abound, with all of the U.S. Republican presidential candidates vowing to repeal the climate commitments made by President Barack Obama. Refocusing the climate change conversation on life as the reason we’re fighting will serve to bridge the political divides that have impeded our progress, broaden the community of people who care about climate change, and mobilize a new group of climate change warriors: mothers.

Mothers are the embodiment of life. We provide sustenance for our young just as the Earth sustains life in all forms. This life-giving power cuts across political, geographic and socioeconomic lines. To mobilize mothers is to tap into a group of people that, wherever we live and whatever we believe, have life-giving and life-sustaining in our DNA. There is enormous bipartisan potential to be unlocked in the reframing of climate change as a maternal issue. 

Since the beginning of time, mothers have looked into the eyes of their children with infinite hope for the future. But today, looking into the eyes of one’s child is also a call to action. Because we now know that in order to prevent catastrophic, human-caused climate change, we must act. The world we want for future generations is possible only with major effort on our parts, including taking individual and collective action and holding our governments and businesses accountable. We now know that we must fight for the future we want for our children.

This idea is second nature for most mothers, who inherently possess a fierce instinct to fight for our young. In the words of Ceres Executive Director Mindy Lubber, “I would throw myself in front of a bus if it were coming at [my daughters]. We all need to throw ourselves in front of this bus called climate change.” These protective instincts are crucial for the climate change fight. The battle will be long, and affirmations to continue the fight will need to be made day after day. The actions we will need to take to exceed the commitments made in Paris may not always be easy or logical, so relying on scientific evidence alone to motivate us will fall short. The movement needs the emotional, instinctive leadership abilities inherent to many mothers to sustain it, to remind us of what we’re fighting for when the obstacles seem insurmountable. Logic may not tell us to jump in front of a bus, but maternal instinct will.

At every level, mothers are taking this inspiration they find in their children and using it as fuel for their work. Christiana Figueres, the United Nations' climate chief who was instrumental in reaching an international agreement in Paris, has said that her deep passion for climate change work did not fully develop until her two daughters were born. Marshallese poet and climate change activist Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner wrote a poem to her young daughter that brought world leaders to their feet at the 2014 Climate Summit. She also co-founded a nonprofit organization to educate youth on environmental issues. In Bangladesh, Rajena Boiragi supports women to start their own small businesses, enabling their families to be more resilient to climate change impacts. In Massachusetts and New York, hundreds of mothers are mobilizing their communities through Mothers Out Front, an organization that mobilizes mothers and grandmothers for a clean energy future. And, through the work of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), mothers are increasingly making healthier buying decisions for their households and the planet.

To acknowledge climate change as a human life issue, regardless of religious or political affiliation, is to bridge political divides and broaden the base of people who will act. “Pro-Lifers“ would be proud to fiercely support the climate change fight as it seeks to protect life on the grandest scale. And to value the instincts and leadership abilities of mothers is to inject the movement with a new and lasting vigor that will sustain the fight from generation to generation.

Life is the reason we’re fighting. If we remind ourselves of this, there is little that we won’t do to ensure its vibrant continuation.

Image credit: Flickr/COP21

Jamie Beck Alexander is a CSR and sustainable development consultant with clients including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the design firm IDEO. Her work has focused on bringing a human-centered design perspective to international development and climate change resilience projects. Her son and the inspiration for this piece, Akiva Sagan Alexander, was born in June 2015.

By Nick Gower and R. Paul Herman

Millennials are earning a reputation for doing things differently. They communicate intensively using social networking (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest), are revolutionizing the transportation (Uber, Lyft), and now they are demanding sustainable business and accountability. Currently the largest living generation in the United States, millennials have their ‘buying power’ to throw their weight around.

But this innovation doesn’t happen by chance or because millennials passively expected it, but rather because they advocate for themselves and want to create it.

How are millennials sparking innovation? The old-fashioned way: by speaking up and leading the way. At Sustainable Brands, Tamay Kiper is a content manager and trained engineer. Kiper chose to take her talents to Sustainable Brands because she believed in its mission to accelerate the shift to a sustainable economy. When Kiper began investing in her 401(k), she realized her investments were not necessarily in line with her values, so she spoke up.

Kiper's investment plan administrator explained that although he had focused on providing fiduciary responsible investment options, he did not know the social or environmental impact of those funds. So, Kiper recommended that the firm work with a sustainability ratings-firm to create impact scores for mutual funds and ETFs. The goal was not only to rate for financial performance, but also to identify future risks from human, social and environmental factors in a changing marketplace.

Take fossil fuel companies like Exxon or Chevron for example, which are currently valued based on the oil and gas reserves. When major fossil fuel companies extract all of their fossil fuel reserves, the global environment would be drastically deteriorated. This scenario doesn’t seem possible, and those reserves don’t seem like assets. These firms could be overvalued and overpriced. Hence, Kiper and her peers can now allocate their 401(k) investing in a more sustainable manner.

In a similar fashion, Mark Bresnahan, a millennial at the ripe age of 31, is a product manager at Fourstar Connections. Bresnahan is energized by sustainability, and wants his employer, a design and manufacturing firm, to benefit the environment and profit at the same time.  As chairperson of the Environmental Committee at Fourstar, Bresnahan’s leadership – with expertise from Joy Pettirossi-Poland, creator of the More Value and Profit (MVP) Program – is helping Fourstar gain competitive advantage and engage employees.  One of those initiatives was sparked by evaluating their 401(k) on sustainability, which has helped spread the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reporting, as well as expand conversations with Fourstar’s customers about environmental impacts.

Bresnahan explains: “My generation feels a responsibility to not only have a net zero impact on society, but create an environment where people and businesses are a force for positive change.  Evaluating our 401ks for sustainability empowers us as individuals to put our money to work. Investing this way can benefits society, reduce our future risk, and enahnce our potential for future returns."

Leadership comes at nonprofits too.  As You Sow is a shareholder advocacy organization that has made major progress campaigning for citizens and society, including fossil fuel divestment. However, As You Sow’s employees realized that their 401(k) plan options were invested in the fossil fuel companies they were campaigning against.  As You Sow prototyped a tool with our firm HIP Investor to identify mutual funds and ETFs that do not hold fossil fuel producers. A new free, online tool – FossilFreeFunds.org -- allows users to search across more than 1,500 mutual funds from their portfolio or retirement plan to see if their portfolios are fossil free.

Mission based organizations are attracting millennials. Environmental Building Strategies advises Fortune 500 companies and organizations of all sizes on how to improve their real estate, offices and human workspaces.  Yet EBS’s 401(k) could be more sustainable. Graduates of the Presidio Graduate School MBA program, it was natural for business partners Burke Pemberton and Matt Macko – both millennial entrepreneurs – to ensure the firm was 100 percent sustainable. Working with Communitas Financial and HIP Investor more than 2 years ago, EBS now shows the sustainability profiles of the mutual funds in the 401(k). Now, 100 percent of staff invest in their 401(k).

To build a better world, EBS project manager Kristen Magnuson suggested the next innovation – offering Fossil Free portfolios in the 401(k). Magnuson was inspired at the Bioneers Conference where she experienced systems change this way:

“One person at a time, caring deeply about something, and taking a special interest in it, then speaks up, making sure their voice is heard.  By taking action and doing something, figuring it out, leads to small victories, and possibly big ones.  Then in discussing both successes and failures, trying again.”

So when she returned to EBS the next week, Magnuson suggested this new innovation.  “Let’s make this happen; If it's not an option, I want it to be created.” Pemberton and Macko welcomed the innovations, as did Communitas and HIP, to push investing to the next level.   “Red tape changed color and POOF! Here were are: multiple portfolio options for different risk-appetites, and all fossil free!  One of the happiest days of my life.”

Top employers stay that way by listening to all employees, engaging them, and unleashing their innovations.  The best and the brightest employees want to work for those firms. Now more than ever, millennials “want more from business than might have been the case 50, 20, or even 10 years ago,” says Barry Salzberg, CEO of Deloitte Global.

And hiring the best employees to your team is only the first step. In order to be engaged and working to their potential, employees need to feel heard and acknowledged. Employee satisfaction can be highly correlated with corporate performance. See here how Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For, compiled by Great Place to Work Institute, has outperformed the S&P500 and Russell1000 from 1997 to 2014.

Whether you are innovating on the front-lines of your organization, or engaging your workforce as a manager or HR leader, or learning about your own 401(k), you have the power to build a better world – that can seek both human, social and environmental impact as well as potential profit.

Now is you’re time to speak up. You have the tools and you have the power.

===

To learn how you can more deeply engage employees via your 401(k) program, join these webinars:

On Thursday Jan. 14, leaders from As You Sow, EBS, HIP Investor and the MVP will show how companies can engage employees, and improve their 401(k) offerings for staff: Sustainable, Fossil Free 401(k)s: a How To Guide 

And on Friday, Jan. 15, HRO Today, HIP Investor, and MVP will present: How To Attract Talent and Increase Engagement Through your 401(k)

Image credit: Pixabay

Nick Gower is a manager of impact investing analytics + client relations, and R. Paul Herman is CEO of HIP Investor (www.HIPinvestor.com), which rates 13,500 securities globally on Human Impact + Profit, and serves investors, advisors, fund managers and retirement plans with ratings and model portfolios.

Disclosure This information is for education purposes and do not constitute an investment recommendation. Past performance is not indicative of future results. All investing incurs risks. This is not an offer of securities.

Zambia is home to the world's first carbon neutral national park. The achievement in Lower Zambezi National Park is the result of a partnership with BioCarbon Partners (BCP), supported through the USAID Community Forests Program (CFP), and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), and Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ).

Hassan Sachedina, BCP’s md commented: “The achievement of the first carbon neutral park from operations in the world is significant. This broad-based partnership will hopefully pave the way for other parks and tourism operators in the world to become carbon neutral, raising the bar of what “eco-tourism” means.

"Moreover, it shows that if small family-owned businesses in Africa are taking responsibility for their emissions, it should inspire the confidence of Fortune 500 companies to invest in developing the carbon markets through projects with significant conservation and poverty reduction co-benefits”.

The debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food has long been a contentious one, spilling over into statewide elections here in the U.S. and in the headquarters of some of the world’s largest international organizations. Proponents of GMO research insist such crops are one way to meet the world’s demand for food as the population is on course to hit 9 billion by 2050. Those opposed to GMO crops say the fact that such research goes beyond conventional plant and animal breeding creates risks ranging from allergens to potential environmental damage. The arguments have resulted in controversies over whether foods containing GMO ingredients (or any such crops used within a product’s supply chain) should be labelled as such.

The European Union has required such labeling for several years, but this has not yet occurred across the pond in the U.S. and Canada. Should GMO labeling be mandatory in the interest of transparency, or is this just a scare tactic to spook consumers while putting yet another burden on businesses?

Now Campbell Soup Co. is wading into the fracas with its recent announcement that the $8.3 billion food giant, which includes brands such as Pepperidge Farm, Prego and Swanson, will now support federal legislation that establishes a standard for GMO labeling. Perhaps even more importantly, Campbell’s says it will withdraw from all organizations that oppose such labeling measures.

This is quite the turnaround for Campbell’s, which reportedly donated $500,000 in 2012 to campaigns against Proposition 37 (a GMO-labeling initiative in California that did not pass after spending most of the year far ahead in the polls). The company says it is cognizant of the fact that as much as 90 percent of the American public supports GMO labeling. And facing market realities, Campbell’s has announced that a federal guideline for such labeling would be far more seamless than trying to meet a patchwork of requirements across states and municipalities. Furthermore, whether or not science favors your stance on GMOs or not, the stubborn fact persists that it is advantageous for a company to be proactive on this issue. With all eyes on Vermont and how its GMO labeling legislation pans out, it is better for Campbell’s to rise above the debate instead of finding itself bogged down within this food fight.

“We’ve always believed consumers have a right to know what’s in their food,” wrote Dave Stangis, Campbell’s chief sustainability officer, in an email to TriplePundit. “We know that the overwhelming majority of Americans support GMO labeling, and transparency is a critical part of our purpose. That's why we're announcing our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain GMOs.”

Compared to many of its competitors, Campbell’s is ahead of the game. While it insists that GMOs are safe and that “technology will play a crucial role in feeding the world,” the company says that it is prepared to go above and beyond Vermont’s pending legislation and label all products sold in the U.S. for any presence of GMO-derived ingredients. The company adds that it will also reach out to the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the language it will use on its future packaging.

Campbell’s said the changes in labeling will take from 12 to 18 months to implement. That may be too slow for many anti-GMO activists, but nevertheless, this decision is a huge milestone in the ongoing GMO discussion. While this is a short-term victory for those opposed to GMOs, in the long run this could be a win for those who support the development of such foods — especially if, in the future, we realize the catcalls were based more on hysteria than science.

Image credit: Campbell’s

For decades, chemical giant DuPont knowingly allowed a cancer-causing chemical (Perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA), used in the manufacture of Teflon, to pollute the air and drinking water in West Virginia.  Years after the practice was uncovered and made public, the company finally discontinued its use of the toxin.

Yet, the health effects of the replacement chemical are unknown, and DuPont has paid a meager price -- in both dollars and publicity -- for the harm it has caused and may still be causing.

This story, expertly detailed in the most recent New York Times Magazine, underscores just how crucial is today’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) “movement” and suggests that we cannot continue to rely on government and private lawyers to police corporate behavior.

The DuPont story

DuPont’s pollution finally came to light after the company purchased a 60-acre plot of West Virginia farmland in the early 1980s, which it used as dump for the PFOA waste generated at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant.

In the years following that purchase, the cattle belonging to DuPont’s farming neighbors (the Tennants) began to act deranged, appear sickly and turn up dead. (One dead cow’s eyes had turned “a brilliant, chemical blue,” according to the New York Times Magazine report.) An alleged 153 cattle died on the Tennants’ land due to what they could only surmise was DuPont-related pollution.

In a remarkable twist of fate, the Tennants discovered a connection to an Ohio corporate defense attorney named Rob Bilott who, despite making a career defending companies like DuPont, decided to take the Tennants' case. In 1999, Bilott sued DuPont in federal court.

DuPont and PFOA

Here is a bit of the stomach-turning timeline of what DuPont knew about PFOA and when, which Bilott uncovered in documents he subpoenaed as part of the Tennant lawsuit:

• 1961-1962: DuPont discovers that PFOA can increase the size of the liver in rats, rabbits and dogs.


• 1970s: DuPont finds high concentrations of PFOA in the blood of factory workers at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant.


• 1981: 3M, the creator of PFOA and DuPont’s sole supplier of the chemical, informs DuPont that ingestion of PFOA causes birth defects in rats. DuPont tests the children of pregnant employees working in the Teflon division: of seven births, two have eye defects.


• 1984: DuPont discovers that dust emitted from factory chimneys drifts far beyond company property and that PFOA is present in the local water supply.


• 1991: DuPont finds that drinking water in one district contains PFOA levels at three times its own internal safety limit (one part per billion).

DuPont never disclosed any of this, to workers or to the public.

In 1993, DuPont briefly considered using a safer alternative to PFOA (the chemical it is now using in PFOA’s place), but decided against making substitution because, as reporter Nathaniel Rich puts it, “Products manufactured with PFOA were … [too] important … [to] DuPont’s business, worth $1 billion in annual profit,” to justify the business risk of switching over.

Bilott also discovered that, by 1990, DuPont had dumped more than 7,000 tons of PFOA sludge onto the property adjacent to his client (the Tennants), and it did so with the full understanding that the landfill drained into the Tennants' land, causing the water in their creek to contain a frighteningly high concentration of PFOA. Yet, in keeping with the theme, DuPont never told the Tennants.  In fact, the company even went so far as to blame the Tennants’ poor husbandry for the deaths of their cattle.

After it became clear to DuPont what Bilott now knew, the company settled with the Tennants.

Lack of oversight

DuPont was able to get away with this because almost nobody was paying attention.  The current environmental regulatory framework is so weak that chemical companies are left to determine on their own which chemicals are safe to use.  According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “Even if EPA identifies a significant risk from a specific chemical, it is not legally required to take action to address the risk.  And [the Toxic Substances Control Act] has proven nearly impossible for EPA to use to ban or restrict chemicals in commerce.”

Because it hasn’t been regulated, we don’t know exactly how much PFOA is safe to ingest.  Last June, a joint Harvard School of Public Health and University of Massachusetts-Lowell study found an “approximate” safe level of 0.001 parts per billion. Thanks to DuPont and the EPA, there is surely far more PFOA in many American water systems. The Harvard-Umass study found that the 0.001 threshold had been exceeded, often greatly, in 94 systems in 27 states, “serving more than 6.5 million Americans.”

The result?  “By 2003, the average concentration of PFOA in the blood of an adult American was four to five parts per billion.”  In other words, we may have as much as 5,000 times more PFOA in our blood than is considered safe to ingest.

Impact

In addition to the Tennant settlement, Bilott’s work led, in 2006, to a $16.5 million settlement between DuPont and the EPA.  Though the fine was the largest in EPA history at the time, it represented less than 2 percent of the profits earned by DuPont on PFOA that year, Rich wrote in his piece in the New York Times Magazine.  (Bilott also brought a class-action against DuPont, which settled in 2004 for $70 million plus certain medical costs for victims.)

DuPont stopped using PFOA in 2013.  Yet, last May, 200 scientists signed the Madrid Statement, expressing concern about the production of all fluorochemicals, including those that have replaced PFOA. (Want a terrifying read?  Peruse the Madrid Statement.)  This also isn’t the first time the regulation of one harmful chemical led to the adoption of another.

Meanwhile, PFOA’s presence in the world is now ubiquitous.  Research has found the toxin “in the blood or vital organs of Atlantic salmon, swordfish, striped mullet, gray seals, common cormorants, Alaskan polar bears, brown pelicans, sea turtles, sea eagles, Midwestern bald eagles, California sea lions, and Laysan albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge on Midway Atoll, in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, about halfway between North America and Asia.”

What this means for CSR

We didn’t need the DuPont case to illustrate the shortcomings of the current environmental regulatory regime, and we have little reason to be optimistic for the future.

No doubt, Bilott and countless plaintiffs' lawyers have worked tirelessly to deliver justice to victims of corporate malfeasance; yet, what is the result?  At best, paltry fines that have no impact on companies’ bottom lines and do little to disincentivize irresponsible behavior.

To me, this all speaks to the need for stronger internal CSR programs.  Sure, in a perfect world, company CSR programs would supplement vigorous government oversight and strict regulation.  Yet this, as we know, is mere fantasy in America, where regulation’s threat to capitalism far outweighs its benefit to people's’ livelihoods and the future of our planet.

So, what to do?  Whether businesses do so for PR reasons, to placate pesky investors, or because they genuinely care about their impact on the environment and their communities, they must continue to establish and build out their CSR teams.  Pressure from the inside can shape corporate behavior, and no company wants to be seen as lagging behind its peers on compliance.  Moreover, companies are far more likely to favor internal change than the heavy hand of the government, so internal CSR growth is also our most realistic hope for improving corporate citizenship.

Image credit: Flickr/Richie Diesterheft

A month has passed since COP21 President Laurant Fabius struck the gavel heard round the world and formally adopted the first draft of the Paris Agreement, an unprecedented deal struck by nearly 200 nations to address climate change. As we speak, national and sub-national governments are grappling over how to make good on their commitments to a low-carbon future. One thing is clear: We'll need a multi-pronged effort to realize the agreement's goal to keep global temperature rise "well below" 2 degrees Celsius — and government action is only the beginning.

By themselves, national commitments associated with the Paris Agreement will only limit warming to 3.5 degrees Celsius, Oscar-nominated filmmaker Josh Fox pointed out in a recent post on TriplePundit. Private-sector engagement is one way to fill this gap, and luckily for us, a shift is already underway.

"In addition to the momentum associated with carbon pricing on the national and sub-national level, capital markets are now recognizing carbon risk as a material risk," Joe Madden, co-founder of EOS Climate, said during a breakout session at COP21 focused on environmental standards. "They're reacting in the form of moving capital away from carbon-intense assets and toward carbon-efficient assets."

This recognition, driven in large part by the climbing tally of stranded fossil fuel assets (now pegged at $2 trillion), is a significant one. Market actors are already beginning to employ methods to shift funds away from risky carbon assets, such as low-carbon indices and exchange-traded funds, but it's not yet enough to move the needle. Markets need more information, Madden said, and that's where the standards community comes in.

"When you look at capital markets, there's some very low-hanging fruit with regards to carbon mitigation: Commodity markets, in general, trade assets that are undifferentiated," he explained to a room of standards professionals, company executives and journalists in Paris.

"The greenhouse gas impacts and many other [environmental and social] externalities are not considered in the private marketplace. So, when you think about where standards go, this to me is the biggest opportunity for standards themselves in enabling the markets to differentiate not just by materials but by impact."

Okay, so what does this really mean? Madden, who presented a concept tool at COP21 to differentiate and reward carbon efficiency in commodity production, used the example of two barrels of oil: A recent analysis of petroleum oils from around the world found more than an 80 percent difference in their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per barrel.

This means that two barrels of oil that appear to be identical — and may even come from the same processing facility — can differ in their lifecycle emissions by up to 80 percent, based on the practices employed at the initial extraction point. On the open market, purchasers will opt for the cheapest barrel of oil by default, even though it may very well carry significantly higher GHG impacts that introduce more carbon risk to the base of the purchaser's supply chain.

"Now, the interesting thing is that similar graphs can be made for palm oil, rice, soybeans, different metals or natural gas," Madden continued.

Filling the information gap: The Carbon Impact Factor

"Commodity markets are quite efficient at getting to the lowest price," Madden told TriplePundit in an exclusive interview. "Because commodities are undifferentiated, they go to the lowest price. So, if that price doesn't include any other information about impact ... then the materials that succeed in the market are going to be the lowest financial cost. Period. Without any other consideration."

As institutional investors grow more concerned about the financial risks associated with carbon-intense assets, multinational companies are looking to improve carbon efficiency in their supply chains in order to woo investors (or at least keep them happy). But the data these companies are tracking — and reporting to investors — are often incomplete.

Most companies report only their direct emissions (Scope 1) and those from the generation of purchased electricity (Scope 2), with a much smaller percentage reporting indirect emissions that occur in the supply chain (Scope 3). But for several sectors, such as the agricultural sector, the impact of Scope 3 is far higher than the others — meaning the emissions that go unaccounted for are often those doing the most damage.

This isn't an easy problem for companies to solve, especially when it comes to commodity purchasing: At present, it's very difficult — if not impossible — for an individual company to trace those barrels of oil or bags of grain back to the initial extraction point and evaluate their carbon intensity.

That's where the new concept, dubbed the Carbon Impact Factor or CIF, can be of help. This family of financial instruments allows commodity buyers to invest in low-carbon production practices and reward the producers that implement those low-carbon practices. By utilizing technologies already in use in the capital markets — such as mobile technology, big-data analytics and blockchain (the technology that enables cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin) — CIF places a direct value on carbon efficiency practices associated with a given commodity, and communicates this information to the market for use in purchasing decisions.

As Madden put it, the CIF concept is "an evolution of a lot of hard work put in by other people." It builds on existing technologies, as well as standards and verification mechanisms (think: RECs or certifications like fair trade). None of these concepts are new, but bringing them together and into the commodities market is — and it could revolutionize raw materials sourcing.

Not an offset, nor an inset

Further, metrics (fittingly called CIFs) can be purchased by multinationals to demonstrate their efforts to reduce carbon intensity within their supply chains. A CIF is not a carbon offset, nor a carbon inset. It is a measure of carbon efficiency relating specifically to the raw materials a company purchases, which represent emissions that now go largely unaccounted for.

"[The concept] is specifically designed to embody metrics that are associated with certain lower-impact producers, and transfer those metrics to the commodity markets themselves," Madden explained. "Purchasers can buy commodities and buy the metrics."

This model has a threefold benefit for commodity producers, multinational companies and customers. Producers are given incentive to adopt low-carbon practices, and they receive more customers and more money for their products as a result. Multinationals can intentionally reduce carbon risk at the base of their supply chains by purchasing carbon-efficient commodities, as well as CIF credits that allow them to communicate these decisions to their stakeholders. And customers in search of more sustainable products get even more assurance that the items they're purchasing have a lesser impact, down to the raw materials.

"It goes beyond the traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) marketing," Madden said of the benefits for companies. "It's very much a financial risk instrument that can also be used to communicate good corporate governance."

Of course, one of the primary stakeholder groups with whom companies are looking to share this information are those good ol' institutional investors — who also stand to benefit from commodity differentiation as the divestment movement continues to grow in strength.

"The flip-side of divestment is investment," Madden told 3p. "Where is the money that's coming out of carbon-intense resources going? [Investors] need signals of where carbon efficiency is ... but it's very difficult at present to understand carbon efficiency. This is a way of mixing the bottom of the global supply chain with the top of the financial system."

From concept to reality

"There are a lot of small innovations contained in this concept," Madden told us. "Link those smaller innovations together, and you get a transformational system. In order to move the concept forward, we determined that we had to put out a comprehensive thought piece [downloadable as a PDF], so that all of the different global stakeholders could take a look at this and see how these link together."

Madden told us that the feedback has been positive so far, but it will likely be a while before we see this concept in use in the open market. "The challenge remains that we're going to have to implement it. We're going to have to make it real," he told 3p.

"That's going to take a very, very concerted and directed effort that consists of the stakeholders in the system coming together to further define and really make the system a reality. There's already been expressed interest from significant global entities around, 'Where do we go from here?' So, that would be the next step."

The developers of the CIF concept have a long row to hoe, but Madden told us that the Paris Agreement bolsters this type of collaboration for a low-carbon future.

"The Paris Agreement did an amazing job at signaling that the global community is serious about addressing climate change, and they left the flexibility open for real innovation. They did not preclude innovation by over-engineering a regulatory fix," Madden told us. "So, I think this type of approach is entirely compatible with the overall design of what has come out of Paris. It's a way for both policymakers and market participants to effectively demand and communicate carbon efficiency, which is ideal."

Image credit: Mary Mazzoni 

By now the world knows that a group of self-styled patriots has taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon. While these fearless lovers of the Constitution came prepared with guns, ammunition and camo, it appears that they brought little else to prepare for a long-term siege. No, we're not talking about the conspicuous lack of food, fuel, blankets and other vital supplies to hold a remote outpost in the freezing Oregon winter against the full weight and might of federal, state and local authorities. What's really conspicuous is the lack of a plan for rallying support to their cause.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the Malheur takeover from a corporate social responsibility perspective. The whole point of CSR is to break open the conventional boundaries of a company's relationship with its consumers, workers and supply chain, and with society at large. In doing so, CSR can also act as a guide to effective social action by groups of citizens, too.

ALEC, Koch Industries and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge land grab

When you take a look at the Malhuer occupiers through a CSR lens, the nut of the problem immediately becomes apparent. While styling themselves as an independent, grassroots activist group, the Malheur occupiers have been acting more like a front group for ALEC (the Koch-supported American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-friendly lobbying group that has become notorious for its extremist positions on gun rights and other right-wing causes).

ALEC's primary strategy is to produce boilerplate state legislation, and over the past several years its positions have become so extreme and out of step with CSR trends that it has lost scores of major corporate members, including many legacy brands like Coca-Cola and McDonald's.

To understand the ALEC connection, consider that the Malheur takeover has been engineered by Ammon Bundy, son of the now-notorious Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. Using state's rights as an excuse, the elder Bundy has been openly plundering public grazing lands for a generation, culminating in a narrowly avoided shootout in 2014 year when federal agents attempted to enforce a series of legal findings against him. Confronted by Cliven and his armed enforcers, the agents backed off. Since then, action against Cliven and his supporters is still in a holding pattern.

The Cliven Bundy episode was not a one-off. In April 2014, Vice.com editor Grace Wyler described a broader movement to transfer public lands to private ownership, anticipating the Malheur takeover in an article entitled An Armed Standoff in Nevada Is Only the Beginning for America’s Right-Wing Militias. Do read the full article for a detailed look at the national implications, but for those of you on the go, here's the money quote:

"Bundy’s larger point — that the feds shouldn’t own 80 percent of the land in Nevada, or nearly 50 percent of land in 11 Western states — demonstrates the long-running tension over state’s rights and federal land-use policies that invariably pick winners and losers among environmental and business interests."

Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona explicitly connected the dots between ALEC and Bundy's states-rights justification back in 2014, requesting that the U.S. Inspector General look into possible lobbying violations related to ALEC's "undue influence" over federal land management. In his request, Grijalva specifically cited Bundy's claim that Nevada has a "strong moral claim" to federal land within its borders.

Following up on those points, in February 2015 reporter Christopher Ketcham took a deep-dive into the ALEC connection for Harper's under the title The Great Republican Land Heist: Cliven Bundy and the politicians who are plundering the West. The article explores the roots of the land grab movement in the early 20th century, as federal control over the conservation of public lands consolidated. Business interests pushed back on a states-rights platform as a stepping stone to private ownership. Ketcham cites a historian's recap of the situation that reads straight out of the modern ALEC playbook:

"... The public lands 'are first to be transferred to the states on the fully justified assumption that if there should be a state government not wholly compliant to the desires of stockgrowers, it could be pressured into compliance ... '”

CSR lessons from unintentional teachers

That brings us back around to the Malheur takeover. Considering the ALEC connection, it's no accident that Ammon Bundy and his followers are doing everything wrong from a "people, planet, profit" perspective, to the point that even the folks over at ALEC must be shaking their heads at the group's missteps.

We're still waiting for a statement of disapproval from ALEC regarding the takeover -- after all, it certainly undermines all the hard work ALEC has put into gun rights when those guns are put to use illegally by "good guys." In the meantime, it's telling that several Republican presidential candidates have officially expressed their opposition to the Malheur takeover, even though they are staunch gun advocates who went out of their way to express support for Cliven Bundy during and after the 2014 episode.

With all this in mind, let's tote up the CSR "people, planet, profit" lessons in reverse order.

Profit: This is the only point on which the Bundy group has expressed some degree of clarity. On rather vague terms (more on that later), Ammon Bundy has a stated goal of turning the Malheur Refuge over to ranchers, miners and other businesses, who presumably would turn a profit from their enterprises, enabling local employment to grow.

That’s all well and good, but the devil is in the details. For example, for "ranchers" the Bundy plan could include recreational ranchers who may be interested in preserving wildlife habitat for paying guests to shoot, as well as factory farms, sheep farms, or any number of other livestock operations that would not necessarily co-exist nicely with existing businesses.

Another thing to consider is who profits. For example in the case of miners, the Bundy plan could include global businesses like the Pebble Mine Co., which is fighting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to build a copper mine in Alaska that would impact an important fishery -- a project like that would certainly be at odds with existing interests.

In other words, while Bundy’s plan could help create new jobs, it could also spell disaster for existing stakeholders.

2. Planet: Greenwashing doesn't really belong in the CSR category, but in a case like the Malheur takeover it's the only option. When you invade a public conservation area for the purpose of turning it over to private-sector activities that have a history of environmental degradation, it would helpful to provide for some sort of offsetting action -- greenwashing, if you will -- as a means of screening bad behavior and deflecting negative publicity.

3. People: When companies set out to engage in CSR projects, they usually don’t just barge in with a good idea. Ideally they do their homework, identify local needs, and work with local stakeholders to develop effective projects.

As a corollary, groups that go into local communities need to be self-sustaining or operate in such a way that does not impose new burdens on local residents.

With a group consisting only of out-of-state membership, clearly Ammon Bundy should have done his homework before traveling to another state to make a point.

While some in the nearby town of Burns have voiced general support for the group’s aims (more on that in a bit), others are confused about the messaging, and the overwhelming sentiment is that Bundy and his group should pack up and leave.

Those in opposition include the Bundy group’s intended direct beneficiaries, Dwight and Steven Hammond, as well as local residents and ranchers, at least one of whom has accused the Bundy group of undermining years of work between local stakeholders and the federal Bureau of Land Management.

The Bundy group’s goals, consisting of a vaguely-stated desire to transfer control of the Malheur Refuge to private enterprise, also completely overlook a critical group of stakeholders: Native Americans -- namely, members of the Paiute tribe whose ancestors occupied the region for thousands of years. Naturally, they are also calling for the Bundy group to go home.

On top of that, by ignoring the local sheriff's repeated calls for the the Bundy group to leave, the Malhuer occupiers have undermined the emerging far-right "constitutional sheriff" movement, which claims that the office of the county sheriff is the only legitimate authority in the United States.

While the connection to ALEC may not be a direct one, the constitutional sheriff movement was at play in the 2014 Cliven Bundy standoff, and it is consistent with ALEC's goals of undermining federal authority.

To sum up, Ammon Bundy and his followers appear to have alienated every single group they purport to help -- except, perhaps, for Twitter fans.

Image credit (screenshot): U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service.

By Scott Huntington

Just over a year ago, people from all around the world turned their attention to Krommenie, Netherlands, as it opened a high-tech bike path to travelers.

Dubbed the SolaRoad, the path is special because one of its two lanes is equipped with solar panels that can feed energy back to the grid. Although the path spans less than 250 feet in length, developers hoped it would be able to produce enough annual energy to power homes. Now that it’s been open for a full year, it’s time to look at what worked and what didn’t.

The path passes a major test

After one year, researchers are in an educated position to say whether the SolaRoad was everything green-minded people hoped it would be. Fortunately, the path exceeded expectations even in its early stages. After it had only been operating for six months, the path attracted more than 150,000 riders, and more importantly, generated more than 3,000 kilowatt-hours of energy. That’s enough to power a home for a year.

Testing and improvements are ongoing

As you may have expected due to the pioneering nature of this path, the SolaRoad had some problems despite its impressive results. In fact, a mishap occurred only a month after the SolaRoad was open. Poor weather conditions caused its top layer to break off, and a portion of the path had to be shut down. That happened even though the materials were rigorously tested in a laboratory beforehand to ensure they were roadworthy. This brings up some pretty hefty concerns about how these roads would eventually handle cars, if they were breaking on a bike path.

Eventually, engineers were able to come up with a material that would hold up to the weather, and the SolaRoad opened in entirety again. Because the path is in the middle of a three-year testing cycle, it’s possible other unexpected challenges will arise later on that will need to be dealt with.

Riders have adapted to the technology well

As mentioned above, more than 150,000 bikers have already chosen to travel over the SolaRoad. Engineers also clarified that riders hardly seem to notice anything different about the path’s surface. As a result, researchers agree the public has smoothly adopted the technology.

It makes sense that the SolaRoad was launched in the Netherlands. Cycling is already a very popular activity there, and it's known to be very safe.

However, the same can’t be said in terms of bike use in the United States. Statistically, only 1 percent of trips are taken by bicycle. Additionally, there is often confusion about bike laws, and it doesn’t take to see cars driving in the bike lanes, or at least ignoring the often-forgotten law of giving a bicyclist a minimum of three feet of space. It will be interesting to see the reaction if a solar bike path ends up in the U.S.

Energy generation worth a closer look

Initially, the fact that the SolaRoad has generated enough energy to handle a household’s needs in just six months seems impressive. However, some critics have urged people to develop an alternative perspective.

Consider that the SolaRoad cost $3.7 million to build, and in the Netherlands, solar energy costs $2 per kilowatt. That means the money spent for the SolaRoad could have bought 520,000 kilowatts of electricity. Compare that amount with the 3,000 kilowatts produced by the SolaRoad, and it’s easy to see why some people aren’t convinced the project was worthwhile. That’s 173 houses that could have been powered instead of one, for those wondering about the math.

The cost involved and the possible challenges with finding materials that can tolerate certain climates are two possible reasons why solar bike paths may not be poised for widespread adoption just yet. Still, we’re learning a tremendous amount by giving it a shot, and there is hope for the future.

Those of us who live in the states may not have to wait too long to see some Dutch influence. This spring, the Netherlands and California signed an agreement to collaborate on energy-efficiency projects ranging from electric car charging stations, to zero-emission public transit solutions and, yes, maybe even our very own SolaRoad.

Image credits: SolaRoad

Scott Huntington is a writer from Harrisburg who has been featured on Business Insider, INC, Time, and more. Check out his automotive writing at offthethrottle or follow him on Twitter @SMHuntington. 

Soil is one thing that we hear very little about, despite the fact that it will have a tremendous bearing on the future of our species.

While modern agriculture has tended to view soil as little more than a substrate to physically support the plants and hold whatever chemicals are added to make them grow, it’s become clear that this is not a sustainable model. It also belies how little we know about the tremendous diversity of microbial life that lives in our soil, a diversity that has mostly been ignored despite that fact that it could very well hold the key to fertility. That is beginning to change.

According to Nathan Cude, a microbiologist at Novozymes, a spoonful of soil contains about 50 billion microbes, comprising up to 10,000 different species. That’s more than the number of people who have ever lived on Earth. Cude is assigned to the BioAg Alliance, a joint venture between Novozymes and Monsanto, which seeks to understand the impact that soil microbes have on agricultural productivity, and to leverage that understanding to produce seeds with microbial coating that will make them more productive.

The two companies each bring unique skills and knowledge to the endeavor. Novozymes brings an established product portfolio as well as strengths in microbial discovery, application development and fermentation. Monsanto brings a highly-developed seeds and traits discovery capability, a global field-testing network, regulatory expertise, and an extensive commercial footprint.

Together, they planted 500,000 test plots across the U.S. this past fall, using over 2,000 microbial coatings. It is hoped that the use of these coatings could improve yields while reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides.

The idea isn’t totally new. Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck discovered in 1888 that the roots of leguminous plants were inhabited by a bacterium called rhizobium, which helped to take nitrogen from the air and convert it into food for the plants. Farmers and gardeners have been using it ever since.

TriplePundit spoke with Novozymes CEO Peder Holk Nielsen this fall about the company's participation in COP21. At that time, we also briefly discussed this project. This is what Nielsen had to say about the motivation behind it:

"The science is still pretty young. We haven’t really hit it hard yet. But what we’re going to do is to start from the top. If you look at the FAO reports, farmers will have to produce about 70 percent more food in 2050 compared to 2013. Some of that comes from the increase in population — we can expect to be about 9.5 billion by 2050 -- but also by virtue of the increased wealth in many of the emerging markets that will adopt some of our bad habits. That represents a pull for about 70 percent more food. That’s a number that gets people’s attention.

"People want to know: How’s that going to happen? ... I’m pretty sure farmers are going to be able to do it, but I’m not sure they’re going to be able to do it sustainably. You can run farmland down, you can deplete your soil totally, but after 20 to 25 years, the bills start to show up.

"So, we start with the 70 percent, and we work with Monsanto who tells us that the lower threshold for impact is 3 percent. If it’s less than that, farmers won’t be interested. A good number to work with, at least hypothetically, is a 5 to 6 percent yield increase. ... If you can get that on some of your major row crops on your first-go technology, there will probably be follow-ups and maybe you can double that. And maybe you can cut out 20 percent of that 70 percent by just having better use of the food and cutting out waste in the system. Then, you only need about 10 efforts like this one to make that 70 percent in a sustainable way. That’s kind of the game we’re in here."

Indeed, it will be a tremendous challenge and a tremendous opportunity.

Says Rob Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, “What we are really excited about is this fascinating, nearly invisible factor that plays a huge role in the life of plants — microbes.”

We will need to get a lot smarter than we are now if we are going to make this happen while becoming more sustainable at the same time. Nielsen spoke of the opportunity in Africa, where only 10 percent of suitable farmland is being worked today due to issues pertaining to land rights, infrastructure, distribution, etc.

“And on the one-tenth,” said Nielsen, “you only get about a one-tenth of what the yield could be. So, they are only getting 1 percent of what they could do, without cutting down any rainforests or anything. It’s not an easy problem, but given a couple of decades, it will get solved.”

It will be interesting to see how effective this new direction will be, and whether it will raise the same kind of concerns that have been raised by other biotech efforts to boost productivity on the farm.

Image courtesy of BioAg Alliance

By Molly Duffy

Businesses are doing more to promote walking and biking, both for commuting and as part of the work day. One of the driving reasons for this movement is that millennials, the biggest percentage of the workforce, want to work for innovative companies. At the same time, companies are grappling with increasing health care costs for them and their employees. Walking and biking, as part of a company’s wellness program, accomplish many of a company’s goals regarding employee health and other aspects of sustainability.

Walking and biking provide many benefits for employers and employees alike. In case your company needs to be convinced why promoting walking and biking is such a good thing for the bottom line, here are some motives to get everyone moving.

Health benefits

Some organizations are already reaping the benefits. For example, Cleveland Clinic's employee wellness program promotes walking meetings, includes a “Walk With a Doc” component, and offers its 80,000 members insurance premium discounts, which have saved the Health Plan an estimated $80 million in unnecessary health care delivery costs over the last four years.

A whopping 75 percent of disease in the U.S. is chronic and preventable (think: obesity, heart disease and diabetes), yet walking just 20 minutes a day can make a difference. The Surgeon General’s recent Call to Action on Walking aims to make walking a national priority.

Wellness programs

It can be easy and rewarding to move your wellness program outside whether that means providing company-owned bikes for lunchtime errands or promoting walking meetings in which employees can amble through the business campus rather than slouching at the conference table.

In recent TriplePundit post, Why B Corps Should Expand their Health and Wellness Programs, author Ryan Honeyman wrote: “One of the best areas for B Corps (and other sustainable businesses) to improve is by providing health and wellness programs to their employees ... In addition to helping individual workers, healthy living programs have been shown to enhance a company’s bottom line. For example, Johnson & Johnson estimates that its health and wellness program had a return on investment of $2.71 for every dollar spent between 2002 and 2008. A study of a different employer found an even higher return: Every dollar invested in healthy interventions yielded $6 in health-care savings.”

Meeting sustainability goals

Walking and biking can help to meet multiple sustainability goals including those pertaining to wellness, transportation and employee engagement. For example an organization can score LEED points for installing bike commuter facilities like showers and bike storage and for developing safe routes to transit.

Active transportation

Bike shares and bike-to-work programs reduce traffic congestion. Even biking or walking to lunch and lunchtime errands can help. TriplePundit’s post Practical Ways to Incorporate a Holistic Wellness Program into Your Organization suggested Zagster as an easy way to get started with a bike share.

But is your workplace walkable and bikeable?

According to the 2015 National Community and Transportation Preference Survey, millennials favor walking over driving by a substantially larger margin than any other generation. Still, many places simply aren’t safe enough to walk or bike. Small steps toward making our workplaces and neighborhoods more walkable and bikeable can make great strides if in doing so we create new advocates for walkability and bikeability.

At a time when complete streets are the goal of so many local governments, corporations and their employees can be a loud voice in the conversation. We need places to walk and bike. Across the nation, suburban corporate office parks are planning and retrofitting to ensure that they are both walkable and bikeable. They’re also adding residential and recreational components. While the term “live work play” may be trendy, the concept is not. It hearkens back to what was originally called a town.

Over the past decades, our society has slid into the habit of driving everywhere and sitting once we arrive at every destination, except for the gym. The average American is more than 24 pounds heavier today than in 1960. Now, we are taking a stand against sitting and realizing that if we make walking and biking and standing part of the day, we feel better, work smarter and might not even have to drive to the gym.

Logic aside, walking simply makes us feel good, and when we feel good, we can’t help but do a good job. Good for our bottoms and our company’s bottom line.

What do you think? Do you walk or bike to or at work? Would you if you could?

Image credits: 1) Pixabay 2) Pixabay

For over 20 years, Molly Fontanesi Duffy, Esq. has focused on solving a broad range of environmental and social problems. She has worked with nonprofit organizations, government and businesses, serving in many different capacities including: management, fundraising, legal and policy work, outreach and communications. Currently, she is working with Rails to Trails Conservancy to create partnerships between hospitals and local trail groups.

An active community volunteer, Molly served as chairman of the Tredyffrin Township Environmental Advisory Council and co-founded the township’s Sidewalks Trails and Paths Committee. Currently, she serves on the board of the Open Land Conservancy of Chester County.

She gets her best ideas when she is walking.

Follow Molly on Twitter @mollyfduffy