Search

Anyone who has traveled to the jungles of Central America, or the hot, semi-tropical lands of the sub-Sahara, has probably had to deal with the risk of contracting malaria. Some of my earliest memories as a child date back to my introduction to the bitter taste of quinine tablets and the counseling I received from my father, a scientist, of the importance of not missing a single dose. Guatemala's tropics, while not the most dangerous region for malaria infection, harbors its own challenges for life expectancy, and it was my father's work as a nutritionist that gave him a personal understanding into the risks of malaria, and the heartbreaking outcomes of complications from the disease.  Quinine, mosquito nets and bug repellant were not absolute protection against malaria, but they were considered essential in Central America's tropical zones.

"Someday they'll figure out how to make a vaccine," I remember him saying wistfully, "but probably not in my lifetime."

His predictions were right. While he didn't have the opportunity to see that accomplishment, he probably would have taken solace in knowing that it would occur a lot sooner than he expected.

Last Monday, the European Union Human Medicine Regulatory Agency announced that the first vaccine against malaria had been approved. Mosquirix or RTS,S from British pharmaceutical company Glaxosmithkline was developed in partnership with the Malaria Vaccine Initiative and a whole host of private and public sponsors. It has been approved for children aged 6 months to 17 months of age, who are particularly at risk for malaria infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided $200 million toward the vaccine's development, which also received clinical development assistance from the Walter Reed Army Hospital. The U.S. Agency for International Development, ExxonMobil Foundation and the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund also chipped in.

The collaborative effort also opens the door for malaria vaccine development that can cover a wider spectrum of ages and needs. The vaccine that was developed targets the most dangerous species of malaria carriers, the Plasmodium falciparum parasite, but has only been shown to be effective in certain age groups.

Disease and related issues like malnutrition kill at least 10 percent of children below the age of 5 in sub-Sahara (amounting to 1 in 9 children in 2012), but developing vaccines that can target the other four parasites that carry malaria may now be a possibility. More than half of the world's population lives in malaria-infested regions, and at least half a million people of all age groups die from malaria or complications related to the disease each year.

Perhaps just as significant an accomplishment is the fact that the vaccine will be essentially not-for-profit. The global collaboration on this vaccine sets a bar that HIV and AIDS research struggled to meet for years: developing a mechanism where a vital medication could be dispensed in an affordable way that would expedite treatment and yet cover the significant costs of research.  Galaxosmithkline, which has worked on the vaccine for 28 years, has agreed to offer the malaria vaccine at cost with a 5 percent markup that will be invested back into research for new vaccines.

It isn't unusual for foundations and other nonprofits to invest significantly in medical research, but the potential impact of this breakthrough gives hope for many types of preventative vaccines, not just those that target the transmission of malaria. And that's the beauty of this accomplishment. Parasitic infections that occur as complications to poor nutrition, extreme poverty and environmental conditions may one day be preventable through vaccination. The economic and humanitarian implications of being able to lower child mortality rates with a series of vaccines -- with private-public sponsorship -- benefits everyone. It's a turning point, however preliminary, that one scientist, bent on doing his part to eradicate global malnutrition, would certainly have been proud of.

Image of mosquito: James Gathany/Centers for Disease Control; Speculation of how a vaccine would work (2011);Nigerian children: FMaineICC

Gary and Kit could have rested on their laurels. Twenty-three years after founding multimillion-dollar energy bar company Clif Bar, Gary gave up the CEO role and the husband-and-wife co-owners became "co-Chief Visionary Officers." Visionary Officer is a great job for the second phase of life, given that it allows much more time for the bike treks through Northern Italy that the duo are known to love.

However, they weren't content to ride off into the sunset. While Clif continues to thrive under CEO Kevin Cleary, with 20 percent of ownership in the company shared by employees through an ESOP, and the five aspirations model to guide them, Kit and Gary were ready for a new challenge: food and wine.

While the Clif Family Winery and Farm was founded in 2004, it has flourished in recent years, in line with Gary and Kit's departure from the day-to-day at Clif Bar. The three-acre farm grows a variety of heirloom veggies including tomatoes, corn and peppers that are used to stock their popular Bruschetteria food truck, which is often found stationed outside their tasting room, Velo Vino. The farm's operations are overseen by Brad Crawford, Kit's brother, who happily experiments with different varietals and growing styles to see what will prove fruitful (pun intended -- they have a pack of fruit trees, too).

In addition to three acres of vegetables, the farm grows 10 acres of grapes: eight of cabernet sauvignon (known to grow well in the region) and two of Zinfandel, Gary's favorite. These and other grapes go into the bottles served at Velo Vino. Wine tasting rooms in Napa county can be somewhat stuffy, with every patron sniffing different and stranger notes in each passing varietal. Velo Vino aims for the opposite: a friendly tasting room where cyclists are at home even if they've just come off a 30-mile ride and have enough street dust to prove it. While the wine itself has mixed reviews, the atmosphere of the tasting room can't be beat.

The whole Clif Family Winery and Farm employs approximately 35 people on a variety of farm-, food- and wine- related projects. The whole thing is operated with the same triple-bottom-line principals that helped make Clif Bar a leader in social and environmental business practices.  This company isn't trying to be some kind of Silicon Valley industry disrupter, and it doesn't need to be. While some might pooh-pooh this hobby business, it sure as heck beats golf and the early bird special!

Images credit Jen Boynton

Yesterday, UPS released its 2014 CSR report. I caught up to UPS CSO Rhonda Clark to talk about her first year at the helm of CSR efforts at UPS, the milestones the company has achieved and what fuel solutions the company is investing in for the future.

Clark is a 25-year veteran of the package delivery giant. She joined UPS in 1989 as a plant engineering supervisor, one of few women in that department. Through the years, Clark rose through the ranks in plant engineering (with assignments in industrial engineering and operations) until she was named VP of Environmental Affairs and Chief Sustainability Officer in 2014. She is also a board member of Girls Inc. and served as the chair of UPS's Women's Leadership Development program.

UPS set an ambitious goal to drive 1 billion miles using alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles by 2017.

UPS began their billion-mile journey in 2000. It took the company almost 13 years to drive the first 350 million miles, but in 2014 alone, it logged 154 million miles, pushing it past the halfway mark. That enabled the company to avoid 24 million gallons (5.4 percent) of their total conventional gasoline and diesel use. By the end of 2017, the company aims to drive 350 million miles a year in their alternative fleet, although Clark feels confident that it could be sooner, perhaps even by 2016.

The biggest investment to date has been in natural gas, but the company is taking a hard look at several other forms of alternative fuel to see which solution performs best in certain situations and even in varied locations around the world.

"As the world is changing and growing, different parts of the world have specific expectations as to how we address issues of congestion and climate change and air quality, so the requirements may vary based on where we are doing business. So we invest in these different technologies so that no matter where we are, we have a solution that will work," Clark says.

More than 5,000 alternative UPS vehicles are on the road today, the bulk of which are natural gas. UPS has grown that fleet significantly since 2012. The company started out with liquified natural gas for long-range fleet vehicles and migrated to compressed natural gas, and most recently this past year, into propane. UPS continues to try out new fleet solutions, using electric vehicles for short-range delivery routes, like in a city center, especially internationally where fuel prices are often higher and many customers expect reduced emissions and more efficient vehicles.

One big driver of sustainability at UPS, Clark says, is customer expectations. Globally, the company fields inquiries about fuel efficiency from savvy consumers, and since the company is a part of many other business supply chains, the pressure for efficiency comes from all directions.

"As we get better, they get better," Clark says, "so they are asking good questions about what we do and how we do it so that they can learn from us. UPS is definitely one of the leaders in transportation logistics because we do a great job of measurement and data collection, and our data, in regards to our emissions, is third-party validated and certified, so our customers can feel confident that what we report and what we say we do, we actually do."

This helps customers when they measure their own supply chain data and look for ways to reduce their footprint. UPS can pinpoint the emissions a single client generates by examining their shipment details and offering ideas for ways they can reduce their impact.

What are some of the day-to-day challenges Clark faces now that she is CSO? The constant evolution and changeability of sustainability itself.

"The biggest challenge is figuring out how we [keep up with sustainability], how we continue to evolve the program, and how we continue to get better. We keep looking for solutions to problems that don't yet have solutions, but are problems that we know as owners of a large fleet that we will have to address."

One of the greatest challenges is finding solutions for UPS airlines (a role Clark held before CSO). The company has not yet been able to significantly mitigate the use of jet fuel in the network (not for lack of trying, Clark says). It is certainly a challenge they are working on diligently.

Although UPS has logged many accomplishments, Clark can't pick just one as outshining all the rest.

"Every solution for me is exciting, from the greatest to the smallest. They are all significant because of the people that are impacted by them."

Looking toward the future, Clark is excited about their increasing use of renewable diesel fuel. In 2013, she estimated that the company used 2.6 million gallons, but in 2014, that number increased to 46 million gallons.

"We have had great success with it," Clark says. "In fact, we would love to buy as much of it as we can get our hands on, because it is a great solution as we continue to look for ways to shrink our footprint."

Clark is also excited about the company's smaller scale success with renewable natural gas (made from methane) and is looking to implement that on a bigger scale in the future.

"Because of the investments that we have made over the last few years in natural gas for the fleet, now we have the availability to put renewable natural gas into the fleet. It's another avenue for us to refine and get better."

Evidently UPS really is going to buy as much renewable diesel as it can. Soon after it released the report, UPS announced new renewable diesel deals that will make it one of the largest users of renewable fuel in the world. As if that weren't enough, UPS also pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and joined 12 other companies at the White House to support the American Business Act on Climate Pledge.

image credit: UPS 2014 CSR report

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

By Rebecca Calder

Evidence, not assumptions, need to be a driving factor in any program demanding funding and claiming impact.

Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) has emerged as an area of interest in relation to maintaining adolescent girls’ school attendance, with the ultimate goal of reducing dropout rates and supporting adolescent girls to achieve better educational outcomes.

Despite this interest, there is a dearth of evidence in support of any causal relationship between menstruation and girls’ school attendance. Many advocacy campaigns, interventions and pitches for investment are based on the assumption that distribution of sanitary products will lead to improved school attendance, performance, progression, and better outcomes for girls.

But, with larger and larger amounts of funding and resources being put into MHM efforts, it’s increasingly important to make sure that the various approaches are backed by real impact data.

I have become particularly interested in the evidence around menstruation and schooling outcomes for adolescent girls during my recent work in East Africa with startups. Through my work, I’ve met with almost every local player in the market, and have heard the arguments that sanitary pads reduce adolescent girls’ absenteeism, keeping girls in school, and thus improving schooling outcomes. I’m seeing a couple of problems with these claims that need to be addressed in order for us to make real progress.

Insufficient evidence

There is a weak understanding of what counts as evidence among many MHM businesses. One business has claimed claimed that provision of their sanitary pads in schools lead to a 75 percent decrease in school absenteeism among adolescent girls. When I enquired what absenteeism was before (the baseline), in order to understand the magnitude of the reduction, they were not able to provide data on this. This was important because if girls were only missing on average 0.20 days of school per month, a reduction of 75 percent only meant that girls were attending, on average, an additional 1.5 hours per month -- not much of an impact in anyone’s books.

A number of businesses make claims that they can “ensure girls stay in school” based on anecdotal evidence, either of what they saw their sisters or other female relatives experience, or tales from the field. While these stories are no doubt true, and legitimate, this is not evidence.

Others use statistics, claiming that “65 percent of girls in East Africa could win back up to six weeks of school each year if given affordable, dignified means to manage their periods.” Still others claim that this amount is two months of school every year. One company claimed: “Hundreds of thousands of young girls … miss school on a regular basis because they don’t have access to safe and affordable sanitary pads.” In chasing down the data to substantiate these claims I, and others, have been given small-scale qualitative studies and poorly designed quantitative studies — or we have just hit back holes and stone walls.

And even if the evidence for MHM interventions did show evidence of an increase in 0.50, or one or more days of school per month, if this cannot be linked to better school performance, likelihood of re-enrolling the following year, likelihood to transition to secondary school, and higher literacy levels, then I question whether this could be considered impact worth investing in.

Fortunately, some MHM businesses I have spoken with also understand this evidentiary problem, and they are in the process of designing more robust quantitative research to better understand the relationship between MHM and schooling outcomes. This is exactly what we need going forward.

But what is the state of the evidence at present?

What is the evidence?

This leads me to the second — killer — problem. Sanitary pad companies are over-claiming impacts on the basis of poor, limited or no data. Here is what four independent studies from Kenya, Zambia, Malawi and Nepal say.

The Adolescent Girls Empowerment Program in Zambia collected data from 5,241 girls in 2013 for a baseline study. Among those girls who reported having missed days of school in the past year, the reasons given (with multiple responses possible) were:

1. Student sick/ill: 54 percent


2. Other: 29 percent (the majority of which had to do with financial issues, lack of money for books, fees, uniforms)


3. Household responsibilities:  15 percent


4. Uniform dirty: 8 percent


5. Rather do something else: 5 percent


6. Funeral/bereavement: 5 percent


7. Menstruation: 1 percent

In Kenya, baseline data from a study in Kilifi that surveyed 2,500 girls recorded reasons for girls missing school (over a three-month period) in number of days missed as:

1. Sickness: 2.6 days


2. Lack of school fees/materials: 1.7 days


3. Death/sickness of family/friend: 0.93 days


4. Menstruation: 0.45 days


5. Housework: 0.25 days


6. Care for family: 0.19 days

So, menstruation does not appear to be a major cause of girls missing school in either Zambia or in Kenya. In Zambia, illness, poverty and household responsibilities are all far more important. In Kenya, sickness, poverty, and family care and responsibilities were far more important. While some claim that “sickness” might also cover the effects of menstruation, studies that allow multiple responses, as the above do, minimize this risk.

For those who reported missing school due to menstruation in the Kilifi study, the reason given was:

1. In pain: 70 percent


2. Nothing to manage period: 45 percent


3. Scared to have accident at school: 20 percent


4. Embarrassed: 12 percent


5. Scared to be teased: 12 percent


6. No private place at school to manage period: 4 percent

So, even for those who were missing school due to menstruation, not having anything to manage their periods was not the most important driver — pain was. And, taken together, being scared about being embarrassed should others find out about their periods (reasons three through five), account for 44 percent of reasons, and are therefore just as important as having nothing to manage their periods (at 45 percent). This suggests a need not only for girls to have greater ability to manage their periods (which would reduce this fear), but also approaches that build girls’ confidence, and boys’ understanding and support for girls.

The Malawi Schooling and Adolescent Study (MSAS) is a school-based survey of 1,675 students between 14 and 16 years old sampled from 59 primary schools and their catchment areas in two rural districts in southern Malawi. This longitudinal study on adolescence and school quality found that, “although one-third of female students reported missing at least one day of school during their previous menstrual period, menstruation accounts only for a small proportion of all female absenteeism and does not create a gender gap in absenteeism.”

So, menstruation is not one of the main reasons for absenteeism, and does not disproportionately disadvantage girls over boys in regards to absenteeism.

In Nepal, an RCT (Randomized Controlled Trial) found no effect of the use of menstrual cups on absenteeism amongst girls who used the menstrual cups regularly during their periods. Girls in the study were randomly allocated a menstrual cup for use during their monthly period and were followed for 15 months to measure the effects of having modern sanitary products on schooling. The study found that, while girls were 3 percentage points less likely to attend school on days of their period, there was no significant effect of being allocated a menstrual cup on school attendance.

There were also no effects on test scores, self-reported measures of self-esteem or gynecological health. They conclude that these results suggest that policy claims that barriers to girls’ schooling and activities during menstrual periods due to lack of modern sanitary protection may not be warranted. We need to be really cautious with the finding, as what researchers appear to have been testing is impact of better menstruation technology on school performance, not whether access to any menstruation management product improves school performance (98 percent of all the girls in the study were already using some form of menstrual management).

So, even with a better way to manage their periods, girls are not attending more. This supports the findings from Zambia and Kenya above that girls miss school for a number of different reasons that are generally more important than menstruation.

The best evidence comes from a recent systematic review on menstrual hygiene management by Sumpter and Torondel. Not only did they highlight a plethora of methodological problems with the studies that they reviewed, but after looking at the 11 studies that were investigating the relationship between menstrual hygiene products and psychosocial outcomes including education, they concluded that “there was no quantitative evidence that improvements in [menstrual] management methods reduce school absenteeism.”

I want to finish by stating that I absolutely think that girls deserve access to menstrual hygiene information and products as a human right. But, if you are looking for a silver bullet that will reduce absenteeism, keep girls in school longer and lead to better schooling outcomes, the current state of the evidence suggests that menstrual pads are not that bullet.

In fact, it is unlikely that a silver bullet exists at all. The reasons why girls miss school and drop out of school are complex, and require multi-pronged contextual solutions underpinned by robust evidence. I suggest that in an environment of scare resources, and lots of competing claims for these resources, investors need to demand better evidence, and social impact ventures need to do more to supply this. I’ll be looking forward to reading more about the impact of MHM products on schooling outcomes from those companies who are committed to exploring this issue through robust research and evaluation.

Editor's Note: This post has been modified to reflect changes made by the original source, Unreasonable.is.

Image credit: Flickr/Gates Foundation

Rebecca Calder is the technical director at Spring Accelerator—a business accelerator supporting products and services that could change the lives of adolescent girls. She has more than 20 years of experience as a gender and social development specialist and has produced a significant body of research that has informed policy for national governments and multilateral sponsors. She is also a Girl Metrics specialist, working with M&C Saatchi on the Girl Effect Accelerator.

By Maggie Nelson

We sat down with the Arizona Diamondbacks, Portland Timbers and San Diego Padres to talk sustainability, the position sports teams are in to influence their massive audience, and how we can all live more environmentally-conscious lives.

These teams, alongside their peers, have made sustainable practices a priority in their organizations. The Green Sports Alliance now includes nearly 300 members from 135 teams, and teams across all major leagues are sparking conversations about what it means to run an environmentally-conscious organization. With their influence on and involvement in their communities, alongside a widespread viewership, sports teams are in a unique position to promote sustainable practices to the masses. In fact, only 13 percent of Americans say they follow science, while over 60 percent say they identify as sports fans.

Mark Golub, president of business operations for the Portland Timbers, explained, “Being a sports team, we have a platform and awareness that maybe some other organizations don't have; [one] that we need to use responsibly.” He continues by saying: “The beauty of sports, in my mind, is this unique ability to bring different groups of people together. It cuts across age, gender, socioeconomic [status], and is a place where anybody can have a shared experience.”

Sustainable practices are ingrained in the Timbers’ day-to-day operations at Providence Park, where the Major League Soccer team plays. The stadium is LEED silver certified and was awarded for its recycling efforts, and the team has several practices in place to help reduce waste and give back to the community. The organization founded their Stand Together program to team up with their fans to support the Portland community, and have partnered with organizations like Relan to repurpose their old stadium banners into unique fan engagement products like tote bags and document cases.

Golub stated: “[When] you listen to our fans, there are a lot of things that are important to them, but the fact that we are an organization that cares about the environment, cares about the community, is very important to them and definitely resonates in the research that comes back.” The Timbers’ strong connection with their community is reflected in their fan attendance: The team has sold out every home game since their inaugural season.

The Timbers are not the only team with a strong focus on fusing together their community and environmental initiatives. In fact, it appears to be a common theme across most sports leagues. When describing their move to Petco Park in 2004, Mark Guglielmo, vice president of ballpark operations and the general manager of Petco Park for the San Diego Padres, explained that the team wanted to be good neighbors and seek opportunities to do the right thing in the community and for the environment.

Since their move to Petco Park, the Padres have implemented a number of sustainable practices throughout their organization, from the management offices to the stadium. They also recently completed a $15 million renovation of their 20-year-old spring training facility, earning a LEED gold certification. Petco Park also recycles used cooking oil through a partnership with Buster Biofuels, a local San Diego company, where the oil is converted into biodiesel fuel to help fuel some of the county’s high school busses, as well as the cleaning and groundskeeping equipment used at Petco Park. The Padres also donate their old turf to local ballparks and golf courses.

“We have a full cycle [on our] whole [operation], which is really what it's all about,” explained Guglielmo.

For the Arizona Diamondbacks, implementing sustainable practices proved to be a unique challenge at Chase Field, an air-conditioned stadium with a retractable roof in the middle of the desert. But spend a few minutes with Graham Rossini, vice president of special projects and fan experience for the Diamondbacks, and you’ll quickly realize that sustainability is a key focus area for the team, a mindset embedded from the top down in the organization.

“[Our executive leadership] believe[s] in the vision; they believe in the social responsibility that we have in our marketplace, and to our fan base, to say [that] we can be a very powerful example for others to change behaviors,” Rossini said. He continued, “It’s not … a dollars-and-cents decision on why we improve the air handlers or change out the lighting on the concourse.”

In addition to designing a LEED-certified spring training complex, the Diamondbacks also built the APS Solar Pavilion, a 17,000-square-foot structure outside of Chase Field that generates 75 kilowatts of solar power for the stadium. The team is also engaged with the community, partnering with Arizona State University students on green business initiatives, and also supporting the Reimagine Phoenix program, a citywide initiative with a goal of reducing landfill waste by 40 percent by the year 2020.

What is true across many of these organizations is that they are dedicated to the communities in which they reside, and they see a real opportunity to use their position as sports organizations to help spark conversation and promote sustainable practices. Rossini explained: “[We have] over 2 million fans in our ballpark … tens of millions more watching games on TV, and the educational and communication platform that we have because of that [allows us] to say, ‘Look at what we're doing in a facility as complex and difficult to operate as Chase Field.’ If we're doing it here, in your smaller office building or commercial center or even your home or day-to-day life … these changes should be a lot easier to implement.”

There is a substantial amount of time and resources dedicated to green initiatives across sports organizations today, and teams are starting to realize the positive impact on those investments. Jackie Venture, operations coordinator for the Miami Heat, stated in the NRDC’s Game Changer Report that “in one year, thanks to our greening and responsible energy consumption measures, we saved $1.6 million.” She continued, “We also attracted about $1 million in new corporate sponsors ... who aligned with our greening efforts.”

However, the idea of “doing the right thing” is also important to teams like the Timbers, Padres and Diamondbacks. Gloub stated, “[The Timbers] generally have a good sense of what particular programs under our sustainable umbrella involve and yield, but some of the things we do is because it's just the right thing to do.”

Sports leagues are in a unique and influential position to promote sustainable practices to the masses, to spark conversations about the importance of sustainability in our day-to-day lives, and to help initiate change. Though there is always more work to be done, teams like the Timbers, Padres and Diamondbacks have taken critical steps in changing the way we talk about and incorporate sustainable business practices into our own lives. More importantly, the message the teams are sending is this: Small steps add up, and little changes make a big difference.

“Don't try to boil the ocean,” Guglielmo explained. “Take small steps. Take small steps every day, and over time you will see how much you have accomplished."

Image credits: 1) Unsplash 2) Flickr/bryce_edwards 3) Flickr/squeaks2569 4) Flickr/104Muttons

Maggie Nelson has a passion for small businesses and solopreneurs. With a background in marketing, management, and client relations, she now helps businesses find their voice and share their stories in this big, wide digital universe.  

Interviews courtesy of Relan and Transitioning to Green:

Relan is a mother-daughter run, WBENC certified woman-owned small business that offers ways to repurpose and remarket billboards, banners, and other fabric marketing materials to engage customers, fans, and employees. All of Relan's products are manufactured in the USA. 

Transitioning to Green is a global sustainability management consulting firm providing leading-edge client solutions to a wide variety of challenges facing businesses and organizations from all sectors. TTG helps leaders think in new and creative ways – to be more innovative, collaborative, and effective.

Thirteen well-known companies have signed President Barack Obama’s climate pledge, each promising to tackle environmental issues in its particular field. The agreements come months ahead of the United Nations’ international climate convention set to take place this December in Paris.

The 13 businesses — Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS and Walmart — include some of the most influential and most widely-recognized brands in the world. The commitment from these companies could open the doors for climate obligations nationwide, with companies running to environmentally compete with the likes of these large retailers, car manufacturers, Internet brands and banks, among others.

Although the companies joined forces to sign the climate pledge, the businesses are setting different goals for when and how they’ll reduce unclean energy usage. Let’s take a look at what each company is promising individually.

The breakdown

Alcoa: One of the world’s largest aluminum producers.

• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 percent in the U.S. by 2025


• Reduce GHG intensity by 30 percent by 2020.

Apple: Makers of the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac. You probably have at least two Apple products.

• Already 100 percent renewable energy


• Will bring in 280 megawatts of clean power generation online by the end of 2016 through investments in Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Sichuan Province, China.

Bank of America: Charlotte, North Carolina-based banking corporation that’s the second largest bank holding company in the U.S. by assets.

• Increase environmental business initiative from $50 billion to $125 billion by 2025 through lending, investing, capital raising, advisory services and developing financing solutions for clients.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy: Mega-company that owns Geico, Fruit of the Loom and Dairy Queen, while owning partial stakes in Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, IBM and American Express. The chairman, president and CEO is billion-dollar bracket gambler Warren Buffett.

• Match its current $15 billion investment in renewable energy with an additional $15 billion.


• Retire more than 75 percent of coal-fueled capacity in Nevada.


• Construct 552 megawatts of new wind in Iowa. Add more than 1,000 megawatts of solar and wind capacity through long-term power purchase agreements to PacifiCorp.


• Invest in transmission infrastructure in the West and Midwest to support the integration of renewable energy into the grid.

Cargill: The largest privately-held corporation in the United States, Cargill specializes in trading agricultural necessities like livestock nurturing.

• Improve greenhouse gas intensity by 5 percent by 2020


• Improve freshwater efficiency by 5 percent


• Increase renewable energy to 18 percent from 14 percent by 2020

Coca-Cola: The beverage-maker behind Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, Dasani, Fanta and others.

• Reduce carbon footprint of “the drink in your hand” by 25 percent by 2020.

General Motors: The manufacturer of Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac.

• Reduce energy intensity from facilities by 20 percent by 2020.


• Achieve 150 landfill-free facilities by 2020.


• Reduce total waste by 40 percent by 2020

Goldman Sachs: A multibillion-dollar banking firm specializing in investment banking and investment management.

• Continue investment of $40 billion pledged in 2012 to finance clean energy. Money has already been allotted for solar, wind, smart grid and other clean technologies. The 10-year plan is well ahead of schedule, and the company will re-assess its progress and set a new goal for 2025.


• Aiming for 100 percent renewable power

Google: The world’s most popular search engine.

• Purchased 1.1 gigawatts of renewable energy with the goal of powering all operations by 100 percent renewables.


• Committed to reducing water consumption in the arid, rain-starved West.


• Encouraging employees to shuttle, carpool, bike or walk to work

Microsoft: Technological company responsible for Xbox, Windows, Office and Skype.

• Purchase 100 percent renewable energy for the operations of its data centers, offices and labs.

PepsiCo: The beverage company behind Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade and 7-UP.

• Strive for zero deforestation by 2020.


• Expand the use of sustainable farming practices to half a million acres of farmland in North America.

UPS: The world’s largest package delivery company.

• Double the goal to 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Reduce the amount of fuel required to travel a given distance.

Walmart: According to the Fortune Global 500, Walmart is the world’s largest company by revenue.

• Double the number of on-site solar energy projects at U.S. stores.


• Establish joint agricultural partnerships with 17 suppliers


• Achieve zero net deforestation in product sourcing by 2020.

To view a full description of each company's commitments, click here.

Image credit: Flickr/John Lillis

Fast food chains are starting to just say no to antibiotic-laced chicken. Last year, Chick fil-A and McDonald’s announced plans to phase out chickens raised with antibiotics. Chipotle and Panera Bread have also gone antibiotic-free when it comes to chickens. Wendy’s is now slowly going the same route, with an emphasis on the slowly.

Wendy’s is testing antibiotic-free chicken products in a few markets, CNBC reports. The four tests markets are in Orlando and Gainesville, Florida, Kansas City, Missouri, and Austin, Texas, where grilled chicken that is antibiotic-free will be sold. According to CNBC, Wendy’s will “gauge consumer perception and supply availability.”

Wendy’s antibiotic use guidelines don’t recommend or advocate going antibiotic-free. Instead, they advocate the “responsible use of antibiotics to maintain animal health and well-being, or to alleviate suffering due to disease.” However, they do have a few caveats. Antibiotics should only be used “to supplement good animal husbandry practices,” the guidelines stipulate. And they should only be administered to animals by “licensed veterinarians that have met all training and certification requirements.”

Wendy’s antibiotic use guidelines also recommend that the overall antibiotic use in farm animals be reduced, “especially when the class of antibiotics used is both a human and food animal medicine.” The use of alternative therapies is suggested to treat farm animals “whenever possible.”

Why antibiotic use among farm animals is harming humans

Most antibiotics used in the U.S. are used on farm animals, including chickens. A whopping 80 percent of all antibiotic use is on farm animals. Most antibiotics are given to animals that are healthy, according to the Natural Resources Defenses Council (NRDC). They are mixed into the food and water given to farm animals on a routine basis.

Routinely giving antibiotics to healthy farm animals is a big problem. The antibiotics kill off weak bacteria, and that “creates the perfect environment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to multiply and thrive,” the NRDC explains. In a 2013 report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that “up to half of antibiotic use in humans and much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.”

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), including antibiotic resistance, is a growing threat. The World Health Organization characterizes AMR as “an increasingly serious threat to global public health that requires action across all government sectors and society.” The WHO cites the “inappropriate use of antimicrobial drugs, including in animal husbandry” as contributing to the rise of AMR.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

With raw sewage polluting 40 British beaches following heavy downpours recently, the charity Surfers Against Sewage's launch of a new Cleaner Coastal Catchment initiative for two areas in the worst hit areas of south west England is timely.

Developed in conjunction with the Environment Agency, the initiative will help deliver improved water quality at bathing waters predicted to fail by rolling out solutions across communities, businesses and organisations.

The solutions specifically target protecting the sewerage network from fats, oils, grease and sanitary products, maximising sewerage capacity, protecting waterways from misconnections, reducing urban pollution, reducing farming pollution and ultimately improving bathing water quality. The SAS says the scheme will directly engage with thousands of people including decision makers in local authorities, business leaders and the local community via stakeholder meetings, education events, promotional materials, campaign materials and press releases.

The Cleaner Coastal Catchment website will collect individuals, business and organisation’s pledges as communities commit to changing behaviour and implementing the necessary campaign solutions. The pledges, says SAS, will help measure how effective the project has been, and identify any areas that need additional attention.
 

 

Picture credit: © Dbjohnston | Dreamstime.com - Sewage Outlet Pipe Photo

Businesses with a £36m+ turnover will have to report on slavery in their supply chains, the UK government has announced.

The government, which consulted on the threshold level as part of the Modern Slavery Act, said the new reporting requirements would come into force this October.

Speaking in Vietnam during his tour of south east Asia, prime minister David Cameron said: “This measure is one of the first of its kind in the world and it will be a huge step forward, introducing greater accountability on business for the condition of their supply chains.”

The measure will apply to all large firms who do business in the UK and have supply chains elsewhere in the world. The reporting statement must describe the steps they have taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in their supply chains.

Commenting on the corporate reporting requirements of the modern slavery act, Michael Littlechild, director of GoodCorporation said: “While no business sets out to incorporate slavery into its operations, it would be a brave CEO who would say with certainty that there was no forced labour any where in the supply chain. The requirement to report therefore should be welcomed as it will encourage companies to take a responsible and proactive stance in this area.

"Companies are already carrying out due diligence on their supply chains in order to be properly protected from corruption risks and to ensure the security of their IT systems. Adding checks for human trafficking and slavery should not be too burdensome.

“There have been reports that a loophole in the reporting clause means that overseas companies need not comply so that the wholly owned subsidiary of a British construction company operating in Qatar or Dubai, for example, would not need to include the supply chains of these subsidiaries in its reporting.

“Loopholes or not, businesses should see anti-slavery reporting as an opportunity to demonstrate corporate responsibility, good governance and leadership.” 

We’ve seen considerable progress on emissions, including commitments being made by superpower governments, notably the U.S., China, and Brazil. We’ve seen a court ruling in Holland that sets a precedent for citizen lawsuits on government inaction on climate change. There is a growing movement to divest from fossil fuel investments, including major banks, due to fears of stranded assets. And the latest data coming from climate scientists is bleaker than ever. Combine all this and the stage is set for a significant new international agreement coming out of COP21 this fall in Paris. There is a sense of optimism in the air right now.

But a few clouds have recently appeared in those renewable-friendly sunny skies. A group called, Corporate Europe Observatory, whose motto is “exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU,” along with Friends of the Earth (FOE), ATTAC France, WECF and 350.org, have raised a flag of concern, claiming that event organizers have sold too many sponsorships to big polluters, who are “not so climate-friendly.” The groups are concerned that these sponsors could have a negative influence over the proceedings. With so much at stake, and the world seemingly on the brink of reaching an agreement that would at last put a meaningful price on carbon, it’s not unreasonable to consider the idea that some companies could be seeking ways to influence the outcome.

Who are these companies?

Included on the list are the French utility companies EDF (Électricité de France), which relies heavily on nuclear power, and Engie (formerly GDF Suez), which burns a great deal of coal. Also on the list are Air France and Renault-Nissan, as well as Suez Environment which has been involved in lobbying for fracking. Also on the list is BNP-Paribas, which is the foremost French bank in terms of support for coal.

Mailka Peyraut, of the French chapter of Friends of the Earth, said in a press release: "Most of these companies are big emitters of the very greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, such as EDF or Engie whose coal plants alone are equivalent to nearly half of France's entire emissions. While the French government had said that they would look for businesses with flawless reputations, many of them are involved in projects harmful to people, their quality of life and work. Putting the most important climate conference of the decade under the patronage of climate-incompatible businesses does not bode well."

Maxime Combes of ATTAC France added: "The government is offering a cheap and easy opportunity for multinational climate criminals to green-wash their image. The public interest demands that these talks not be polluted by the private interests represented by these companies. Would we entrust the fight against tobacco to cigarette manufacturers? Why do it for climate policy?"

“We cannot negotiate a climate agreement with those who are responsible for climate change: states must listen to citizens' interests, and not the private interests of lobbies and multinationals," said Pascoe Sabido, researcher and campaigner with Corporate Europe Observatory. COP21 is relying on a larger percentage (20 percent) of private funding than some previous climate summits such as COP19 in Warsaw where the level of industry participation sparked protests.

Sabido responded to an email from TriplePundit containing several questions.

TriplePundit: How do you think these sponsors will try to influence the outcome of the summit?

Pascoe Sabido: Sponsoring is more about their image and gaining credibility (for the company and its climate 'solutions'). But it might also afford them opportunities for high-level meetings. The big push will be for business-friendly solutions which don't challenge the status-quo -- e.g. moving from coal to gas, keeping government interference over climate policy to a minimum via a single carbon price (which can allow companies the freedom of choosing their own investments, be them renewables, CCS, gas etc.; as well as another avenue to lobby against a tough price), ensuring there are carbon markets, making sure business interests and growth are the real priority.

3p: Do you believe it will be possible to have some of these sponsors rejected?

PS: Maybe, if there was enough pressure on the organizers. But that wouldn't solve the problem -- that's just the public-facing facade. Government positions are already made when they arrive. And the U.N. itself is welcoming in corporations to be closer and closer to the negotiations -- not just sponsors -- e.g. via the Global Compact.

3p: If so, what would it take (to have sponsors rejected)?

PS: Scandal.

--

We also received this comment from Maxime Combes:

"Sponsoring is not the way for private companies to influence climate policies and Climate conferences, since they are doing this for a long time : Private companies are lobbying inside of the COPs and they won lots of battles since the false solutions they are fighting for are at the top of the political agenda. Sponsoring is what people can easily see, as a clue to understand how private interests are leading climate policies: for example, during the last 20 years of climate negotiations, no State, no International Institution proposed to leave the oil in the soil. This is the result of corporate interests that are encapsulated in the core of the climate negociations. Highlighting the sposoring of the COP21 is not a way to say that COPs would be OK without private sponsoring : it is a way to highlight the corporate takeover on all climate policies."

No doubt we will hear more about this in the weeks and months ahead.