Search

By Kara A. Mergl

Both Walmart and Costco have been in the news this summer for their positions on animal welfare. While Walmart’s recently released position on animal welfare has been heralded as the greatest commitment to animal protection yet by any single food business, Costco is just another in a long string of companies to come under the microscope, after undercover footage of one of its egg suppliers, Hillandale Farms, treating hens cruelly surfaced last month.

The public pressure on Costco since then has only increased. Ryan Gosling penned a much-publicized open letter urging Costco to source only cage-free eggs, and the Humane Society filed a complaint with the FDA last week aimed at Costco and Hillandale Farms over their treatment of hens.

Robust animal welfare policies are critical for any major food business, as Walmart and Costco surely know. Following in the footsteps of businesses like Nestlé, Walmart announced its commitment to “continuous improvement to the welfare of farm animals in [its] supply chain," and even acknowledged the role of both ethics and science in its decision-making process.  Costco has a similar policy, described on its website.

At the base of each policy is a statement of support for the Five Freedoms. The Five Freedoms assert that animals in the supply chain should be free to express their normal behaviors and free from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain and suffering, and fear. Supporting the Five Freedoms is the first step toward animal welfare improvements. A real commitment to animal protection, however, needs to extend beyond words on a website.

Savvy shoppers know the difference between big statements and actual improvements on the ground.  Merely having an animal welfare policy, even one based on the Five Freedoms, is not enough.  Sixty-seven percent of shoppers already consider animal welfare in their food purchasing, with 43 percent more doing so more today than 5 years ago, according to a 2014 survey conducted by EL Insights among a nationally represented panel of 1,244 consumers.

Over a 5-year period, dollar market shares rose on humanely-labeled products up to 9 percent from nearly zero just a few years before. One major mayonnaise brand experienced a 13 percent market share increase and a 46 percent sales increase following its announced commitment to using only cage-free eggs.  It only makes sense that businesses are now jumping on the opportunity to tell their customers where they stand on animal welfare issues.  But this initial announcement is only the first step needed.

To set meaningful change in motion, businesses should outline how they actually define animal welfare.  Citing the Five Freedoms as a framework for welfare standards in a supply chain, while still using minimal industry standards for animal care and confinement, is contradictory.

Businesses must back up such references with specifics regarding species-related welfare concerns (such as the dehorning of cows or rapid growth rates of chickens) and supply chain practices the company intends to address over time.  Walmart has made steps toward this level of detail by asking its suppliers to identify problems and make changes in three key areas: confined housing, painful procedures and pain during slaughter. Walmart does not, however, outline what solutions it will accept as improvements.

When it comes to confinement, is a small, barren battery cage with five hens instead of 10 acceptable, or should egg suppliers be advancing toward cage-free systems?  Walmart hasn’t made these vital distinctions.

In a separate document, Walmart does outline its policy on animal welfare in its pork supply.  Here it lists requirements for its suppliers, including on-farm videos in barns, unannounced welfare audits and a mandatory certification program.  The difference between the specificity in Walmart’s overall animal welfare position and its policy on welfare in its pork supply is stark.  But even with more details, without specialized knowledge of the company’s required certification program, consumers are left to guess exactly how Walmart thinks pigs should be treated.

Companies should also streamline multiple policies into one manageable portfolio, with clear timelines for reporting progress.  Similar to Walmart, Costco has a separate commitment for pork in its supply chain. However, neither company references its commitment to pig welfare as part of its overall policy.  If policies are literally not on the same page, how do consumers understand business priorities and know where to look for progress updates?

This part is crucial: Progress needs to be publicly disclosed.  In Costco’s case, its commitment to phase out the use of gestation crates for pigs was initially communicated privately to its suppliers and only later shared with the public after animal advocates promoted the news secondhand. There is no accountability for a commitment made behind closed doors.  In the three years since Costco sent a letter to its suppliers asking them to eliminate gestation crates in their supply chains, the company has been silent on the issue.  No progress has been reported, leaving consumers to wonder just how serious this commitment was.

Businesses have the opportunity to grow their consumer appeal by improving animal protection.  But any competitive advantage will only come to businesses that not only have an animal welfare policy but actually document their progress towards change. Communicating continuous improvements to consumers is critical.

While Walmart is taking the first steps on its animal welfare journey, just three years after Costco, the company finds itself at the center of an undercover investigation involving the treatment of animals in its supply chain. Both Walmart and Costco can learn from this moment and move forward with stronger welfare portfolios to become real champions for animals.  Other food businesses should be paying attention, too.

Photo Credit: World Animal Protection/i.c.productions

Kara A. Mergl is U.S Manager of Corporate Engagement at World Animal Protection. She collaborates with businesses and consumers to increase the availability of humane and sustainable food. Kara holds an MS in Social Policy and a Master of Social Work from the University of Pennsylvania.

Back in 2013, Ikea U.S. president, Mike Ward, dropped a hint about the role of fuel cells in the company's sustainability plans, and it looks like the fuel cell chickens have come home to roost. The company announced plans to install a fuel cell system at its Emeryville, California, store earlier this spring, and now the 300-kilowatt system is up and running. In combination with an existing solar array, the new fuel cell system will enable the store to generate the majority of its energy needs on-site.

Fuel cells: Clean or not clean?

Unlike diesel generators and other combustion-type systems, fuel cells typically generate electricity through a chemical reaction that occurs when hydrogen gas is mixed with oxygen. Aside from electricity, the only other byproduct is water.

That sounds clean enough, but fuel cells typically depend on hydrogen sourced from fossil natural gas. When natural gas fracking, air and water issues, and other natural gas supply chain issues are taken into account, fuel cells are not necessarily clean.

However, the Ikea announcement offers some insight into a sustainable future for fuel cells. Instead of using hydrogen from fossil natural gas, Ikea's fuel cells will run on biogas.

Bloom Energy and biogas

Ikea chose the company Bloom Energy to provide its "Bloom Energy Server" fuel cell system, and that name should ring some bells.

Back in 2008, before Telsa Motors's Elon Musk perfected the art of publicizing clean technology (the company's Powerwall battery being the latest example), Bloom Energy took the world by storm with a public relations blitz for its new Bloom Box fuel cell.

The Bloom fuel cell does produce some carbon dioxide during operation, but the company provides its customers with a choice of natural gas or biogas as a fuel. According to Bloom, the use of biogas provides it with carbon-neutral status.

There were some early doubters, but Bloom Energy boasted a NASA-rooted pedigree for its proprietary solid oxide fuel cell technology that does not require hydrogen gas to operate. In just a few years the company has acquired a laundry list of high-profile customers, including Ikea and other companies that are on the leading edge of renewable energy.

Walmart and eBay, for example, are early Bloom adopters, though not all of their Bloom-equipped locations use biogas.

Fuel cells and electric vehicles

The burgeoning fuel cell market includes both stationary systems for buildings and other facilities, and mobile uses including passenger electric vehicles as well as forklifts, buses and other specialty uses. As these user groups grow, there is an urgent need to resolve the natural gas issue.

While Bloom's use of biogas helps to resolve the problem for stationary fuel cells, the mobility sector is in need of an assist. Solid oxide technology is still not considered a viable choice for electric vehicles, which currently rely on hydrogen sourced from natural gas.

However, there has been some promising progress on the sustainable hydrogen front. Using wind or solar energy to split hydrogen from water is one solution, though it could run into water resource issues in some regions.

Hydrogen can also be sourced from renewable biogas, and Bloom is already looking in that direction. Here's a hint about sustainable hydrogen from the company's website:

" ... Coupled with intermittent renewable resources like solar or wind, Bloom’s future systems will produce and store hydrogen to enable a 24-hour renewable solution and provide a distributed hydrogen fueling infrastructure for hydrogen powered vehicles."

Improving fuel cells and the fuel cell supply chain are also focus areas in the Energy Department's Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative, which is aimed at carving out a place for U.S. manufacturers in the global clean-energy products marketplace.

In the meantime, as we've noted previously, businesses looking to buff up their green cred with an on-site fuel cell are best advised to shop around for a supplier that, like Bloom, can offer a more sustainable alternative to natural gas.

Photo credit: Bloom Energy fuel cell, courtesy of Bloom Energy.

By Benjamin Geyerhahn and Chelsea Sprayregen

A lesser-known provision of the Affordable Care Act provided states with funding to modernize woefully outdated Medicaid application and eligibility determination systems. Whereas the federal government previously paid for 50 percent of these improvements, the ACA bumped that rate up to a staggering 90 percent.

Some states used this funding to transform their programs in remarkable ways. Others missed the mark. The most common mistake: States failed to understand the modern digital divide.

This mistake has implications for Medicaid applicants and recipients and those who employ them. Many employers of low-income workers have struggled to navigate the ACA and find the most fiscally responsible way to help their employees. Medicaid enrollment is a solution for these leaders, but the complexity of the enrollment system makes it a solution with significant challenges.

Where states are missing the mark

The modern digital divide is no longer about those who use computers versus those who don’t; it’s about how people access the Internet. Low-income Americans are less likely to have at-home Internet access or own a computer. Instead, they rely heavily on their smartphones for Internet access. And those who lack smartphones largely rely on public libraries and friends or family members.

When states began making system renovations, they focused on how to simplify or modernize their outdated systems and lost sight of how to make the system easier or more accessible for the intended audience. In doing so, those states failed to recognize the limitations of their low-income audience in this digital age.

For example, New York used its money to “go green” — essentially moving its entire application process online in an attempt to reduce waste. But assuming that the majority of applicants have reliable access to the Internet at home (not to mention tools such as scanners and photocopiers that are often needed to verify income, immigration status, etc.) was unrealistic, and it ignored the financial realities of many hardworking New Yorkers. Now, New Yorkers who lack the tools they need to fill out online applications are forced to rely on unsecure public devices or seek out in-person assistance.

What’s more, research shows that 43 percent of people with annual incomes below $30,000 — most of whom qualify for some public benefits — do the majority of their Internet browsing via smartphones. But only mobile-responsive websites or specially developed apps are truly accessible to smartphone users. While many states made changes to their Medicaid websites, virtually none of them were redesigned with mobile technology and accessibility in mind.

In the end, it became obvious that many of the “modernizations” made to state programs were based more on middle-class values than low-income needs. In those states, the renovations completely missed the mark on helping the intended and important segment of the audience and often made the application and eligibility determination process even more difficult.

Business leaders don’t have to make the same mistakes

Employees’ access to public benefits should be a major concern for business leaders. When benefits and applications are difficult to access or navigate, eligible employees will likely go with the next easiest option: company-sponsored health insurance.

This not only increases healthcare costs for business leaders, but also poses problems for employees. Because company plans are more expensive with fewer benefits than Medicaid, low-income employees will likely find it difficult to pay for the coverage and any doctor’s visits, procedures and medicines.

However, if business leaders help their low-income employees apply for and transition over to Medicaid, it’s a win-win. Eligible employees and their families will gain access to comprehensive coverage at little to no out-of-pocket cost. In turn, this produces healthier, more focused, reliable and productive employees. And employers will save significantly on healthcare expenses.

Work with low-income employers

For employers to help their low-income employees access the full range of public benefits, they must overcome both personal and state-level obstacles. Luckily, business leaders can succeed where states have failed.

1. Work with the best. A third-party enroller can be a valuable investment for business leaders, especially those with a large population of low-income employees. These experts will guide employees through the complicated application processes for every qualifying public benefit. Some companies will even send enrollers to the workplace so business leaders can bypass many of the technological issues causing the digital divide.

2. Cater to employees’ technological preferences. The trend is to put all health insurance information and enrollment online, but that simply won’t work for low-income employees. Understanding their needs and delivering benefits in a way that meets those needs pays dividends. A tech company or a law firm can ask its employees to complete complex forms online, but a manufacturer would benefit from using a dedicated call center with professionals who can walk employees through their options.

3. Create a judgment-free environment. By design, the ACA expanded Medicaid to cover working adults. Helping your employees access this program is no different than giving your higher-paid employees access to a private plan or a 401(k). While most employees will be grateful for the chance to get help at work, you can lead by example and make it clear that there’s no judgment or stigma when your hardworking employees qualify for public benefits. This will ensure that all employees feel comfortable taking advantage of the help you’re offering.

The federally sponsored “modernization” of state Medicaid processes revealed that many government agencies are still unfamiliar with the limitations of the low-income population. However, employers can learn from the setbacks of those agencies. By making more calculated changes to business practices, business leaders can improve communication and offer useful assistance to eligible employees as they transition to Medicaid.

Image credit: Flickr/japanexperterna.se

Benjamin Geyerhahn is an experienced entrepreneur, a healthcare policy expert, and a member of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Health Benefit Exchange Regional Advisory Committee. He is the founder and CEO of BeneStream, which uses a combination of technology and a multilingual call center to guide employers and employees through the Medicaid enrollment process.

This article was co-authored by Chelsea Sprayregen, director of policy and product development at BeneStream. Before joining the team in 2013, Chelsea worked as a field organizer for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. Now, she’s responsible for the delivery of BeneStream’s benefits enrollment service.

By Daryl Horney

Employee engagement is a hot topic and a workplace platform that will only increase in importance. Companies that already implement employee engagement programs and strategies are reaping the benefits, and it is showing in their bottom line. They are creating new customers, becoming more innovative and have a satisfied workforce that is going beyond the call of duty.

This year we witnessed the first employee engagement awards in the U.S. and the fourth HCI Employee Engagement Conference that will take place later this month in San Francisco. In the world of management consulting, agencies are expanding their services to include employee engagement, and attention to the topic is evolving in the academic community as well.

So, what direction is employee engagement headed? Who owns employee engagement, and what does its future suggest? Below are seven characteristics and themes I see emerging in the sphere of employee engagement.

1. Ownership: Employee engagement

Internal communication is a two-way exchange. Because employee engagement involves direct communication with elements from HR, L&D, sales, marketing and PR, it is will be critical for employees not to be inundated with messages from every department.

Employee engagement needs to be centralized, and I believe ownership lies with internal communications. An organized placement of employee engagement programs and strategies will make the most impact when employees know there is a centralized place to go to and receive information.

2. Face-to-face meetings with internal communications

Face-to-face meetings will be central in the maintenance and enhancement of employee engagement programs. I do not believe surveys, electronic communication or a private network such as an intranet will replace the value of face-to-face meetings. In fact, I believe face-to-face meetings will increase and become more organized in structure.

The future of face-to-face meetings will be all about two-way communication that will be used to support professional development initiatives and knowledge creation. Face-to-face meetings will provide an environment where employees will have the opportunity not only to vent, but also to offer solutions and be part of innovative pilot programs. Face-to-face communication will be critical to building relationships with management and potentially assist in the holistic decision-making processes.

3. Reputation through transparency

Companies do everything they can to manage and protect their reputation. As we all know, a bad reputation can have severe consequences. PR will no longer solely manage a company’s reputation. A company's reputation will be managed by its employees and customers through the social media outlets they use. This will create a type of transparency that will reveal how a company treats their customers and their employees.

Reputation will no longer be dependent on how a company reacts to a crisis or what its marketing slogan suggests; instead, reputation will be driven by behavior and employee authenticity. Employees will become storytellers and brand ambassadors more so now than ever before.

4. Professional council

How many times have we thought we could fix it ourselves, only to make it worse? Recently, I had a leaking pipe under my sink. After a few minutes of observing the situation, I decided it needed a new rubber seal. Long story short, I should have called the plumber. The small leak that would have cost me $150 ended up costing me over $1,000 in water damage.

I have seen too many companies try to implement their own employee engagement programs without knowing how -- ultimately failing and having to call a professional to put them back on track. It’s all right to outsource and ask for support from professional organizations.

5. Integration and individualization

Employee engagement programs will become more enhanced and integrated in employees daily lives through technological advances and social commitment. Companies will produce their own apps that will allow employees to have access to company information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Engagement programs will go beyond the typical on-boarding process, latest CSR initiative or newest well-being program; it will go deeper into individual spiritual well-being. In other words, employee engagement programs will become more individualized and segmented. There will be more choices to pick from, like ordering from a menu. Employee engagement programs will not be forced on employees, but will be encouraged.

6. Dialogue and trust

More often than not, managers have unknowingly undervalued their employees. They micromanage, do not provide positive feedback and fail to invest in employee relationships. Many companies still do not invest in employee engagement programs, however, they pour vast amounts into public relations, marketing and advertising activities.

When companies merge or are acquired, there is a lack of dialogue about what is happening and what it changing around them. Employees lose trust in their company and their confidence drops as a result. Management’s lack of detail to employee relations creates a trust gap between management and the employees on the front line.

Without an integrated strategic employee engagement program with effective transparency, companies cannot establish the trust they need to have between management and their front line employees. This trust is the lubricant that keeps the corporate machinery spinning and it needs to be supported with open dialogue and face-to-face meetings.

7. Start now

Years ago I took a class in partnership with the University of Michigan. It’s called “Model Thinking.” What I took from the class is one very important lesson, “For every idea you have, there are ten other people thinking the same thing.”

Who develops the idea first? I don’t want to be the one thinking; I want to be the one doing. It’s extremely important to have that competitive advantage. You might be losing some of your best employees before they start.

Prospective employees, especially millennials, look at a company’s reputation, employee engagement programs and benefit packages. There’s a reason everyone wants to work for Google, Salesforce, Instinctif Partners or the SAAS Institute.

In conclusion

We cannot predict the future. However, we can look at current trends to identify the shaping of employee engagement in the workplace. The future of employee engagement is now. It is taking responsible action and opening up communication channels that enable employees to share their thoughts and concerns, and participate in the future growth of their company.

Employee engagement will help teams work cohesively and remove layers of bureaucracy resulting in faster decision-making and clearer management accountability. Todays’ employees want to be an active participant in their company’s culture. They want to know how they fit in and how they are making difference.

What are your thoughts and predictions?

Image credit: Flickr/Paolo Margari

Daryl Horney is co-founder and senior advisor at SMART Leadership Consulting.

Art and heritage are key to creating strong cities that people want to live in, says Hester Alberdingk Thijm, director of AkzoNobel Art Foundation

By the end of the decade, as many as 100 million Chinese people will migrate from rural areas to live in cities. According to China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage, more than 900,000 villages have disappeared in the past ten years as cities prepare for the influx, with high-rise buildings, huge street blocks, industrial parks, multi-lane highways and shopping malls dominating the city-scape of cities from Beijing to Shanghai and Chengdu.

These changing demographics come with a high cultural price. Since 1990, more than 1,000 acres of historic alleys, traditional quadrangle houses and street shops have been demolished in Beijing alone, accounting for 40% of the city’s central area. And it’s not just a Chinese problem: our heritage is at risk of being wiped out in cities throughout the world, for a multitude of reasons and with far-reaching consequences beyond that simply of the physical loss of objects, art or buildings.

But let’s take a step back and ask ourselves first: why aren’t we protecting our heritage? I believe that, the trouble is, heritage does not really have an owner. Our post-Second World War culture of subsidizing art, culture and architecture has created a negative situation in which, as civilians, we no longer feel responsible for maintaining our collective cultural heritage. This development is compounded by the shrinking civic budgets to support the arts and culture in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, particularly in Europe. For example, between 2012 and 2013, Dutch government funding for arts and cultural programs dropped 22%.

Through AkzoNobel’s Human Cities Initiative, we are trying to redress the balance, encourage citizens to be proud of and embrace their local heritage, and help preserve the places, spaces and objects that make our cities unique. For example, through the AkzoNobel Art Foundation – set up to create an outstanding contemporary art collection for tomorrow’s generation – we open our art spaces up to local communities in and around our sites and offices. It offers people a chance to engage with amazing works of art and inspires them in a way that only art can.

Heritage is not, of course, just about conserving the past; it is also very much about the present and the future. In a 24-hour, always-on digital world – in which people prefer to order their groceries online, rather than venture to their neighborhood stores (according to PwC, almost 6,000 UK stores closed in 2014) – local communities are being eroded and people are losing touch with those around them. Art, culture and heritage can bring people together once more, installing in people a sense of pride and belonging.

More practically, heritage can also help pay the bills. In fact, making it to the UNESCO World Heritage list can increase per capita income by more than 10% in certain regions, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. In Amsterdam, where AkzoNobel recently helped with the restoration of the Rijksmuseum, tourist numbers have jumped to 2.45 million making it the most visited museum in the Netherlands in 2014.

Heritage also attracts talent. Take a look at this year’s Monocle Quality of Life survey – which ranks the top 25 cities in the world which are considered to be the most attractive places to live – and you will see clear trends connecting the success of the winning cities, from Tokyo in first place, to Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm, Munich and Zurich among the rest. Yes these cities embrace innovation and enable citizens to reap the full benefits of 21st century living, but they also put a lot of effort into preserving their historical assets, creating ‘real’ but relevant places that people want to live, work, invest and raise a family.

So the next time a city or government thinks about cutting its culture budget, I would urge them to seriously consider the many additional benefits of having a strong physical and cultural heritage. They will certainly find the consequences go beyond the past and stretch far into the future.
 

The Urban Land Institute's Urban Open Space Award competition recognizes outstanding examples of successful public spaces that have "socially enriched and revitalized the economy of their surrounding communities."

“The submissions from this year are representative of how quality urban open space has become more than just an amenity for cities,” said jury chair Michael Covarrubias, chairman and chief executive officer of TMG Partners in San Francisco. “The international diversity of the projects is reflective of how developers continually work to meet global demand by the public for the inclusion of healthy places in cities.”

We couldn't wait to learn more about these projects and how they revitalized their surrounding downtowns. Read on to catch a peek at the six most innovative urban spaces of 2015.

1. Marina Bay, Singapore

Including the water body, Marina Bay comprises nearly 140 acres -- including a 2-mile loop with a tiered waterfront promenade, two pedestrian bridges, an event plaza and open spaces. Located in the heart of Singapore's city center, this stunning urban space extends a thriving central business district that's been in the making since the 1970s.

Designed by Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore, the space now includes a mix of commercial, residential, hotel and entertainment uses, along with public spaces and parks. Providing an enjoyable setting for work and play, Marina Bay also easily connects to other open spaces, including Singapore’s latest attraction, Gardens by the Bay, which has increased the urban space within the city by another 247 acres.

2. Millennium Park, Chicago

In 1998, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley established a partnership with Chicago’s philanthropic community, the Millennium Park Foundation, and together they produced Millennium Park which opened on July 16, 2004. Located at the corner of Grant Park, the space transformed 16.5 acres of rail lines and a surface parking lot -- and another 8 acres of shabby park land -- into a gorgeous outdoor environment that makes the most of the space.

At least 10 designers at art firms contributed to the park, including McDonough & Associates. Now 10 years old and still going strong, the space hosts around 80 concerts and 5 million visitors a year. And two art installations that call the park home -- Anish Kapoor’s Cloud Gate Sculpture and Jaume Plensa’s Crown Fountain -- are now Chicago’s sculptural icons.

3. Myriad Gardens, Oklahoma City

Between 2009 and 2011, Oklahoma City, in coordination with the Myriad Gardens Foundation and Alliance for Economic Development, invested over $42 million to completely transform the Myriad Gardens. Before the big transformation, the 15-acre space was rundown and rarely used. The partners decided to completely redesign all outdoor areas of the space, as part of the renaissance of Oklahoma City's downtown.

The park now attracts more than 1 million visitors a year and includes: a children’s garden and playground, performance stages, a Great Lawn for relaxing, interactive water features, restaurants, a seasonal ice rink, outdoor seating, and native plant and ornamental gardens.

4. Thousand Lantern Lake Park System, China

This massive 286-acre park system "represents a defining infrastructural success," the Urban Land Institute says. The space is located in the bustling financial district of Nanhai in Guangdong province. Although many areas of its type become “empty towns,” where people come for work and leave shortly after, the district's planned urban development has turned it into a thriving place to live, work and play.

Investors, new residents and tourists flock to the district for its celebrated Thousand Lantern Lake Park, now synonymous with the city’s identity. Sited on land reclaimed from old industrial uses, the park system features “Big Water” features that connect all new city blocks with a system of lakes, grand canals and water alleys.

5. Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square, Santa Monica, California

Shaped by extensive public participation, Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square in Santa Monica embody the city's active outdoor lifestyle while incorporating biodiversity, culture and pathways that physically connect central downtown districts.

"As a whole, the project offers a new model of sustainability for similarly scaled projects– one that carefully balances environmental and cultural considerations," the Urban Land Institute says. "From abandoned parking lots to the largest-scale Mediterranean meadow garden of its complexity in a public space, Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square have restored valuable ecosystem services and social vibrancy to a once derelict and degraded urban site."

6. Washington Canal Park, Washington D.C.

One of the first parks built as part of the District’s Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, Canal Park "presents a model of sustainability, a social gathering place, and an economic trigger for the surrounding neighborhood," Urban Land Institute says.

Located on 3 acres of former parking lot, this 3-block-long park is sited along the historic former Washington Canal system. The design evokes the history of the space with a linear rain garden and three pavilions reminiscent of floating barges. The rain garden also functions as an integrated stormwater system that is estimated to save the city 1.5 million gallons of potable water per year.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Bernt Rostad 2) Marina Bay, Singapore 3) Flickr/Dhilung Kirat 4) Flickr/riveraa8 5) Urban Land Institute 6) Tongva Park 7) Canal Park

This article is part of a series on “The ROI of Sustainability,” written with the support of MeterHero. MeterHero helps companies and organizations offset their water and energy footprints through consumer engagement. To follow along with the rest of the series, click here.

What’s the formula for building a green city? Energy experts in Burlington, Vermont, chipped away at the solution for over a decade and recently crossed the finish line -- announcing the city’s achievement of 100 percent renewable energy. More than 40,000 of the city’s residents enjoy the convenience of powering their homes using cleaner energy alternatives.

Not too shabby for Vermont’s largest city, now considered a major power player (pun intended) that provides pointers to cities across the United States. Their advice? There are no tricks or complex methods to achieving an electrical grid powered by 100 percent renewables. Behind the know-how of its divestment from fossil fuels, experts weighed in on the simplicity for cities to elect cleaner, price-fixed alternatives that will have little-to-no impact on customer bills.

But wait, there’s much more to learn from the socially-conscious city also known as the birthplace of the beloved Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. Through its leadership, Burlington debunks the ubiquitous myth that the road to renewables is paved with pricey technologies and unimaginable rate hikes.

“There’s this notion that renewable energy is an expensive luxury and will raise customer rates — this is simply untrue. We haven’t raised rates since 2009 in this city, and we don’t anticipate raising them anytime soon,” Neale Lunderville told TriplePundit. Lunderville serves as the general manager for Burlington Electric Department (BED) — the city’s local public utility company.

Divorcing themselves from the fossil fuel energy market throughout the years has been the result of strategic and calculated decisions to create a fuel mix of alternative energy resources that include biomass, wind, solar, hydropower and natural gas. It is also worth noting that a majority of these sources are produced locally, statewide or within the New England states.

Additionally, BED owns several electricity generation stations, which include:

• Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station: A wood-fired station powered by 95 percent wood residue (i.e. bark, shavings or clean urban wood waste). At least 75 percent of the wood is delivered by rail, and most comes from within 60 miles of McNeil.

• Winooski One Hydroelectric Generating Station: Purchased in Septmber and located on the Winooski River, this facility averages an annual net output of 30 million kilowatt-hours which is fed directly into BED’s distribution system.

• Airport solar: In February, work commenced on the commercial installation of a 500-kilowatt rooftop solar panel atop the Burlington International Airport parking garage. Over the anticipated 30-year life of the project, BED expects to save $3.5 million in power costs, with an average of approximately $117,000 saved by customers annually.

• Gas turbine: BED's gas turbine produces up to 25 megawatts and is primarily used as a peaking unit and in emergencies.

• Wind turbine: The small wind turbine is located at the Pine Street offices of BED, and serves as a demonstration project designed to determine how much electricity can be generated from the wind at the lake-front site.

Putting a price on the future

As the price for fossil fuel fluctuates at the mercy of market conditions, Lunderville admitted that BED wanted to remove uncertainty from the utility company’s energy supply. So far, it has worked.

“Planning for oil prices at $2 or $200 a barrel isn’t sustainable. The constant yo-yoing of the traditional fossil fuel market is a tremendous barrier," Lunderville explained. “When we rely on our resources that are abundant in Vermont, like wind, water and solar, we can plan our budgets much more closely and remain price-sensitive to our customers who, in the end, are the most impacted by the rise and fall of the cost of electricity.”

Seemingly, residents have agreed with the city’s long-standing campaign to invest in and rely on greener energy sources. In fact, according to a press release denoting the city’s purchase of the Winooski One Hydroelectric Facility last year, the bond received unanimous support from the Burlington Electric Commission, a unanimous vote from the Burlington City Council, and more than 79 percent approval from the voters of Burlington.

Ken Nolan, BED’s manager of power resources, added: “During the time the bond is being paid off, Winooski One power will be very cost-competitive with BED’s other market alternatives. After the 20-year bond is fully paid, Burlington ratepayers will continue to receive power for decades to come, and the only cost will be that of operating the plant.”

Managing for natural disasters

Discussing a city’s renewable energy program must also call for contingencies when it comes to ill weather conditions and extreme power outages -- seen most recently in the state of Vermont during Hurricanes Irene and Sandy.

Mitigating against future power outages falls on BED’s diverse grouping of energy sources to lessen the burden on the grid when one resource is compromised, Lunderville said. He also mentioned that the continued task for utilities as an industry is to be able to provide power on-demand when everything else fails.

Responding to responsibility

Burlington's successes are indicative of the city's will toward building socially and environmentally conscious systems that lessens their burden on the environment.

Other cities have the opportunity to use Burlington as a case study in environmental responsibility and citizen advocacy where both customers and businesses benefit.

Image via Patrick Spencer on Wikimedia Commons

Last month, members of the Consumer Goods Forum, representing more than 400 top multinationals in the consumer goods industry, gathered in New York City for the organization's annual global summit. Member companies were joined by NGOs, journalists and other stakeholders to discuss a topic near and dear to our hearts here at 3p: trust as the foundation for growth.

"Trust is the foundation on which we all exist," Nestlé CEO Paul Bulcke said at the 2015 CGF Global Summit. "We cannot claim trust. We have to earn it."

Bringing top multinationals like Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and Pepsico together raised a heap of questions that will prove crucial to the industry. Fundamentally, what "trust" actually means still seems open for debate. If a shopper gravitates toward a certain brand or product out of habit, does that mean she trusts the company behind it? Should she? And does it even matter?

These questions strike at the heart of key dichotomies that, as we move through the 21st century, may very well separate the winners from the losers: brand versus parent company and performance versus citizenship. A company can produce great products and hire winning PR firms to market its brands, but the troubles of its poor corporate citizenship are always lurking in the shadows -- waiting to bring about disaster. Likewise, a company can be an exemplary corporate citizen but still produce an undesirable product -- or simply not know how to market its product in a way that resonates with consumers.

Performance meets value

Execs from top consumer goods companies seemed keenly aware that striking this balance between consistent product performance and genuine brand value is the key to longevity in a changing marketplace.

"Our industry is at an inflection point," Bulcke continued. "The 'how' has become as important as the 'what.'"

"We are at a crossroads as an industry," Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsico, said in agreement. "Our future is in jeopardy if we don't bridge the cap between consumers and consumer goods companies."

But ... not everyone at the event was buying it.

"[Customers] don't stop to think about the trust of a company; that's a creation of the press when they have to fill inches or minutes and want sensationalism," Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies, said at the CGF Summit. "Either the product is good or it isn't good. Either you like it or you don't."

For those of us in the sustainability set, those initially sound like fightin' words. But then again, when it comes to the majority of consumers, the three-term NYC mayor may have a point.

On one hand, studies and surveys show that 21st-century shoppers are increasingly interested in corporate citizenship and sustainability. Sustainability writers like myself often point to a 2014 Nielsen survey, in which 55 percent of global online shoppers said they are willing to pay more to buy from companies that are "committed to positive social and environmental impact."

But there's a big difference between the way someone answers a survey question and what they actually do in the store. Sure, on face-value customers may say they'd rather buy from a company that practices good corporate citizenship, but do average consumers really know about the CSR performance of their favorite brands?

These are all worthy points, but Bloomberg's argument misses one key factor: the advent of social media.

Social media, millennials and the court of public opinion

"This is an age where everyone has a megaphone at their fingertips," Indra Nooyi of Pepsico said at the summit.

These days, many people rely on social media for purchasing decisions. It doesn't matter if a given consumer cares deeply about sustainability or not; all it takes is one viral social media post about human rights abuses in a company's supply chain or sketchy ingredients in its products to sway the court of public opinion in the favor of its competitors.

A.G. Lafley, president and CEO of Procter & Gamble, summed it up briefly at the summit: "We can build trust for decades and lose it in a minute." (Bloomberg also said he buys Colgate toothpaste simply because he "always has," so what trust means for companies isn't all he and Lafley disagreed on.)

And while Mike Bloomberg probably won't be dissuaded from his favorite cavity-fighter, the same can't be said of the plugged-in generations below him. The New York icon conceded this himself, saying Bloomberg Philanthropies, which receives 86 percent of Bloomberg LP's profits, is a huge asset in recruiting young people. "They make the decisions," he said of young recruits. "They also make the decisions on how environmentally friendly companies are. Any company understands that because their HR department comes back and says, 'This is what the kids are asking about.'"

This touches directly on why all of these powerful men and women, who likely had dozens of other things they could be doing, assembled in New York to discuss brand value: As the world becomes ever-more transparent and socially connected, now is the time to start thinking about trust. For 21st-century companies, what goes on behind closed doors won't stay that way for long, and poor corporate citizenship will always come back to bite you in the bottom-line -- whether it's tomorrow or 10 years from now.

As Nooyi of Pepsico put it: "Although tomorrow looks different, the way we move forward is the same ... Trust in large companies is down. We have to stop and ask ourselves why that is."

Images courtesy of the Consumer Goods Forum

It’s not surprising to read about the deliberate actions of fossil fuel companies to spread doubt on the direct linkage between carbon emissions and climate change. Much has been written on this, and there is even a movie about it.

But recent disclosures shed further light on the full extent of this conspiracy. The fact is that it’s been going on for decades, and, as some members of Congress suggest, it could actually amount to criminal activity.

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), pointed out in a recent editorial that a federal judge found tobacco companies guilty of racketeering for their deliberate attempts to obscure the truth about the linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer. The playbook for fossil fuel companies in their efforts to postpone climate legislation was much the same, even going so far as to use many of the same PR firms to craft the message.

Now, a new report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, based on materials obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reveals the full extent of this deception, which extends back as far as three decades.

The report reveals that at least one company (Exxon) acknowledged climate change risks in its own supply chain as early as 1981 -- seven years before the issue hit the national stage. A veritable treasure-trove of information, these 85 documents formed the seven climate deception dossiers shown here:

1. Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Smithsonian Contracts


2. American Petroleum Institute’s “Roadmap” Memo


3. Western States Petroleum Association’s Deception Campaign


4. Forged Letters from the Coal Industry to Members of Congress


5. Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham


6. Deception by the American Legislative Exchange Council


7. The Global Climate Coalition’s 1995 Primer on Climate Change Science

A few highlights from the dossiers are worth mentioning.

• We’ve all heard about Wei-Hock Soon’s research that was secretly supported by fossil fuel interests. We now know that it amounted to some $1.2 million.


• A leaked 1998 memo from the American Petroleum Institute that said, “Victory will be achieved when average Americans ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The group also targeted media with the same intention, and set a goal for, ”those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science [to] appear to be out of touch with reality.”


• Forged letters to Congress appearing to come from minority organizations concerned about increases in the price of electricity if action is taken against coal.

Keep in mind that while they were deceiving the public, and the government and anyone else who might be interested, these companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, coal giant Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell) continued to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, according to the report.

There is a name for people who do this sort of thing: liars. Liars are not good people. Now, the question that really needs to be considered is whether or not these liars committed crimes. I’m not a lawyer, but I am a writer. So, I’ll go to my source, the dictionary, to see what a crime is:

1. an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law


2. a grave offense especially against morality


3. criminal activity


4. something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful (e.g. it's a crime to waste good food).

Considering the damage done, and that yet to come, and the fact that fully half of all carbon emissions in our atmosphere today have been put there since the time the energy companies knew about this and did nothing, there can be no doubt that No. 2 and No. 4 apply. Unfortunately, we’ll have to leave it to the legal system to decide about No. 1 and No. 3.

Whether or not they end up going to jail or paying fines, they certainly should, at a minimum, be required to do the following, as UCS suggests:

• Stop disseminating misinformation about climate change.


• Support fair and cost-effective policies to reduce global warming emissions.


• Reduce emissions from current operations and update their business models to prepare for future global limits on emissions.


• Pay for their share of the costs of climate damages and preparedness.


• Fully disclose the financial and physical risks of climate change to their business operations.

Our system has done much to encourage people, particularly businesses, to ignore the impact of their operations on the system as a whole, in the pursuit of self-interest, which has left a destructive legacy. Now that we better understand the interconnectedness of the many facets of human activity, it’s clear that we need a shared vision of mutual well-being. Can we get there? Probably not without a major transformation that involves all of us, including the energy companies, working together.

Image credit: Wes Thomas: Flickr Creative Commons

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Unreasonable.is. 

By Tom Chi

These days you’ll hear lots about growth-hacking, social media savvy, PR pushes, and ways to spend your advertising and marketing dollars. I think it’s important to add one more option to that list — one that changes the dynamics of all the rest. Beyond (and sometimes instead of) focusing on the above, you can work on one simple aspect: making your product more meaningful.

Every product lies somewhere on a spectrum of meaning. Those at the high end of the meaning spectrum truly transform customers’ lives. Those at the low end of the meaning spectrum make small, forgettable differences. The companies at the low end of this spectrum have few options than to try to outspend via marketing channels.

That’s expensive. But whether it is paid advertising, online marketing, personal sales, etc., marketing is a necessity for products that create a relatively low impact on people’s lives. Take soft drinks: Coca-Cola might touch a person’s life by giving customers a sweet taste for a couple of minutes, but the benefit to their lives is pretty minimal. Having a low-meaning product means that soda companies will spend large shares of their revenues on marketing. It’s not that the products provide no benefit, but the smaller the benefit and the meaning to one’s life, the larger the marketing budget.

Life-changing products lie on the opposite side of the spectrum and require minimal marketing. For example, I got to meet a team from Georgia Tech who created a glove that helps quadriplegics through automated pulsations. Word got out about their research before they even released a product, and soon they were being covered by national news outlets for segments — essentially receiving free PR and marketing airtime that would cost over $10 million to buy as advertising.

Their product ended up being more meaningful because they started by asking war veterans who were rendered quadriplegic by spinal cord injuries, “If you could get the use of any part of your body back, what would it be?” The answer? To get back the use of one finger — as that finger would give them back the ability to use a wheelchair joystick and interact with a computer — effectively enabling them to bring some independence in personal mobility and communication back into their lives. On the spectrum of meaning, their work had life-transforming potential.

I’m not going to say every product is going to be able to push all the way to that end of the scale. But if you look at things with this mindset, you may find that the costs of moving up the meaning scale are less than what it will cost to market your product as is.

Now what does it mean to move up the meaning scale? It sounds pretty good, but how do you achieve it?

In practice, ask yourself this: When somebody incorporates your product into their lives, what happens? This sounds like an obvious question, but I think entrepreneurs are particularly bad at answering it. They’re so accustomed to traveling around the world to woo investors with splashy statements about how “this changes everything,” they have a hard time being honest with themselves about what really happens when someone uses their product. They want so badly for their product to be for everyone, they struggle to narrow their focus to a more targeted group who might actually benefit.

If you’re trying to reach 10 million people, then maybe the daily effect on their lives is 15 seconds. It’s not that 15 seconds is meaningless, but it’s not exactly transformative. But maybe there’s a smaller set of people for whom the average is a minute a day. Entrepreneurs might say, “Oh, but I’m cutting my business off at the knees if I try to tailor to them.” But I think you need to matter to somebody before you can matter to everyone. Focusing on a smaller group gives you a clarity of purpose.

So instead of pouring your marketing budget into advertising or sales channels, try to find the person or group whose lives you significantly change.

Image credit: Flickr/Chris JL

Tom Chi is the CPO and Head of X at Factory building teams that can build anything in the world. He is an entrepreneur, teacher, rapid prototyping enthusiast and part of the founding team of Google X.