Search

By Ellen Graap Loth

How would you feel if the mobile phone you just replaced with a newer model ended up a landfill like this one?

After I purchased my first smartphone a few years ago, I visited the store where I had purchased the trusty but slightly outdated flip phone I was replacing, and asked if they would be able to take their product back and recycle it. The store employees admitted they had no idea what they would do with the phone, but they acknowledged that it was their branded product and agreed to take it back. I left feeling uneasy about where that phone would go next, but the experience prompted me to dig a bit deeper to find out.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans generate almost 2.5 million tons of used electronics every year. We replace our mobile phones about every two years, and sadly, along with the other electronic products we buy, many of these phones eventually end up in our landfills (more than 80 percent) or in uncontrolled dumps and salvage heaps in developing countries in Africa and Asia. Some of them are not really dead but declared obsolete, unsellable or simply unwanted.

What’s more, according to the Electronics Take Back Coalition, not only does most e-waste end up in our landfills and incinerators, the ash from incinerators also ends up in our landfills.

Electronics: Wanted dead or alive

Why would anybody want what we throw away? In the case of consumer electronics, the answer can be found inside our devices with the wiring that connects them to each other and to power sources. The components of our electronics include rare earth elements that can be recovered and used as raw materials for the manufacturing of new products. Mobile phones contain precious metals such as gold, silver and copper, as well as other valuable materials, so it makes sense to do whatever we can to ensure that they are recycled, especially since the alternative is to continue to mine intensively for these metals. The high cost, labor intensity, and negative impacts to human health and the environment associated with the mining of precious metals are well documented.

Unfortunately, we upgrade our mobile phones and dispose of the old versions so rapidly that the few legitimate industries capable of recycling the resultant e-waste lack the capacity to deal with the massive quantities being discarded. Consequently, some of the U.S.-based companies that advertise that they recycle e-waste are actually reselling it or shipping it to overseas handlers. The practices employed by these handlers have become known as informal recycling, which typically uses primitive stripping and burning methods to recover desirable components of the e-waste items, in turn often creating local pollution and exposing people to harmful acids and toxins, and bringing very little economic benefit to those doing the processing.

If we consider that the U.S. would be a better place to establish e-waste recycling processes given the regulatory frameworks established to protect both the environment and workers, and we acknowledge that entrepreneurs in other countries want the reusable components of what we throw away because it has value, the more complicated question becomes: Why don’t WE want what we throw away?

These overseas businesses, both formal and informal, take an item like a smartphone or a laptop computer, disassemble it and strip away the parts that can’t be reused; what remains are valuable constituents that can be recovered, aggregated and sold to the highest bidder. So, it is difficult to comprehend that so many consumer electronics would end up in landfills all over the U.S., but they do.

It is surprising that it has taken so long for the producers of high-tech consumer electronics, ostensibly some of the most innovative corporate enterprises in the world, to establish take-back programs for their own products or to contribute significantly to the development of the e-waste recycling industry; however, the signs of change are in our midst, including the recent establishment of R2 Leaders, an electronics recycling group that aims to keep used gadgets and PCs out of landfills.

It is also somewhat baffling that American entrepreneurs have not completely embraced the opportunity to create new products from e-waste or at least to harness its economic potential as a source of raw materials for the technology sector. Perhaps the failure of our federal legislators to enact a comprehensive set of laws and regulations governing what goes into consumer electronics, and how they will be managed at the end of their useful lives, has left too much uncertainty in the marketplace.

I remain hopeful that our spirit of innovation will prevail so that we can stop sending valuable resources to the landfill, because if we can’t, our children and grandchildren may have to resort to mining those same landfills when they can no longer extract the precious metals from the earth itself. If you remain troubled by the idea of your old mobile phone landing in a place that is unable to deal with it in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, I can tell you that you are not alone.

What can you do about it?

You can become a well-informed consumer by doing research and asking a few simple questions of the retailer when disposing of a used phone. Ask if the company offers end-of-life take-back for the phone and its accessories, and if it ships its e-waste to a reputable recycler. Let the company know that you care about where mobile phones go.

The Basel Action Network launched the e-Stewards Initiative in 2006 with a goal to create a responsible recycling solution to our growing global e-waste problem. The online e-Stewards resources helped to inform and empower consumers to bring about the positive changes needed, including locating recyclers for mobile phones and other e-waste items. The Telecommunications Industry Association maintains a website with a map of “E-Cycling” centers by state and listing reuse, recycling and donation programs across the country. For example, Recycling for Charities accepts mobile phones and other e-waste items and assures participants that no items accepted will end up in a landfill. Through its sales to reputable vendors, Recycling for Charities makes a profit that it splits with select causes.

As a society, we need to ask the hard questions about whether the e-waste we create is handled in a manner that we would find acceptable in terms of human and environmental impacts, wherever it ends up. If we don’t like the answers, then we should take action. Everyone should visit their local landfill to see for themselves how the waste from their own homes and businesses is managed and how much of the waste that is going into the landfill, including e-waste, could be recycled. In addition, everyone who buys a mobile phone should take responsibility for what happens to the phone they are replacing.

Looking for the silver (or copper) lining in the e-waste cloud

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. has an insatiable appetite for sleek new, faster, more powerful electronic devices, with a tendency to upgrade often. This results in a generation of increasing e-waste, the environmental degradation associated with informal e-waste recycling, and the lack of a cohesive national policy on e-waste. It is clear that a multi-faceted strategy is needed to sustain the supply of resources needed to produce our electronics and to develop the best technologies to responsibly manage them when they become e-waste. I want to acknowledge that the volume of material published online on the subject of e-waste has increased significantly in the past few years, and some of the news has been encouraging, so I want to draw attention to a handful of positive developments.

First, awareness of the issue of e-waste has increased in the U.S., as evidenced by several studies and reports published on the topic. On the consumer front, participation in retail store take-back programs, as well as manufacturer- and municipality-sponsored e-waste collection events, has also increased. Best Buy, the largest U.S. electronics retailer, got in the game in 2009 by offering to collect used electronics and appliances, mostly free of charge in all of its 1,006 stores. Unfortunately the mobile phone buy-back program has been significantly reduced since its inception and now requires a contract and fee. The Best Buy recycling program accepts products from individual consumers and households, not from businesses and organizations.

From a regulatory perspective, although the U.S. Congress has not passed legislation articulating a national policy on e-waste, 25 states have enacted legislation establishing statewide e-waste recycling programs. Hoping to push our federal Executive agencies to lead by example, on Oct. 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, which prompted the establishment of the Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship. On July 20, 2011, the Task Force issued its report, the National Strategy for Electronic Stewardship, which included recommendations to meet the objectives of the executive order for the reuse, disposal and handling of federal electronic assets.

In a follow-up effort by the federal government to control its own actions with regard to e-waste, in 2012 the General Services Administration (GSA) issued guidelines banning all federal agencies from disposing of electronic waste in landfills. The GSA has since proposed regulatory action to change its policy regarding the disposal and reporting of FEA.

From the commercial business perspective, some U.S. recyclers have committed to responsible recycling practices, prohibiting export of e-waste in accordance with the guidelines of the Basel Convention. For example, Potomac eScrap LLC and A Better Way Computer Recycling, businesses providing electronics recycling services in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, like other recyclers around the country, have pledged to maintain transparency and to adhere to the R2 standard of responsible recycling in their processes.

Panasonic and Samsung signed on as Advisory Members to the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc., a multi-state not-for-profit organization committed to environmental and economic sustainability through responsible solid waste management. Recycling for Charities, mentioned above, is a division of the Wireless Alliance, a for-profit corporation that sells donated e-waste items only to R2-certified vendors.

Finally, from the industrial perspective, manufacturers are coming online with e-waste management and reduction strategies, including eliminating specific toxic elements from their production lines and systematically clustering factories so that the waste from one process can be used as the raw material for another. The Japanese electronics firm NEC is one of the first multinationals to adopt the clustering approach for its production facilities. We are now faced with a great opportunity to build this type of sustainable and circular supply chain management into the design of our industrial facilities.

Achieving sustainability objectives in the realm of consumer electronics requires dedicated effort on the part of producers and buyers, and strong governance to manage them responsibly throughout their lifecycles. Now is the time to conserve the valuable resources that go into their production and to develop and consistently implement methods of reusing, recycling, recovering, refurbishing, repurposing and replacing our electronics that are safe for humans and the environment.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Basel Action Network 2) Electronics Take Back Coalition 3) Sustainable Electronics Recycling International

Ellen Graap Loth is a degree candidate in the Executive Master of Natural Resources (XMNR) program at Virginia Tech, expecting to graduate in May 2015.

Chipotle Mexican Grill announced this week that it will stop using genetically modified ingredients. That includes its Asian restaurant concept, ShopHouse Southeast Asian Kitchen.

In 2013, Chipotle became the first national restaurant chain to voluntarily list genetically modified ingredients. That same year, it pledged to completely remove GMO ingredients.

Soybean oil was the company’s most common GMO ingredient. It was used to cook chips and taco shells and included in some recipes, including the adobo rub used for the grilled chicken and steak in those burritos. Both corn and flour tortillas also included some GMO ingredients. All corn-based GMO ingredients have been removed or replaced with non-GMO versions, and soy-based ingredients have been replaced with alternatives such as sunflower oil.

The transition to non-GMO ingredients has not been a costly one for Chipotle. Neither has it resulted in increased prices. Or, as the company said in a statement, “Chipotle’s move to non-GMO ingredients did not result in significantly higher ingredient costs for the company, and it did not raise prices resulting from its move to non-GMO ingredients.”

Some beverages still include GMO ingredients, including those with corn syrup which usually is derived from GMO corn. Some meat and dairy served at Chipotle comes from animals fed feed that is GMO. The company is “working hard on this challenge,” and points out that it has made “substantial progress.” Many restaurants serve 100 percent grass-fed beef.

Why remove GMOs

Chipotle lists the reasons for the decision on its website:

Scientists are still studying the long term implications of GMOs.

The majority of research studies showing GMOs to be safe for human consumption were funded by companies that sell GMO seeds. Few of these studies evaluate long-term effects, and there is a need for more independent studies.

While the companies that make GMO seeds claim they are considered to be safe, some in the scientific community don’t agree. In October 2013, a group of about 300 scientists from around the world signed a statement rejecting the claim that a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for human consumption. “We strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is over,” the scientists declared in the statement.

GMOs can cause environmental damage.

While those who make GMO seeds claim that their cultivation results in less herbicides and pesticides used, a study by researchers at Washington State University indicates the opposite is true. The researchers estimated that between 1996 and 2011 pesticide and herbicide use increased by over 400 million pounds as a result of GMO cultivation.

The herbicide glyphosate may be carcinogenic. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, recently designated glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Glyphosate is an herbicide many GMO seeds are engineered to tolerate. More than 9 percent of the land in the U.S, is planted with crops engineered for glyphosate resistance.

With a change that was apparently as easily said as done, how long will it take for other fast-casual chains to follow suit?

Image credit: Mike Mozart

By Ian Edwards

Objectively speaking, a business facing imminent collapse has two options: close shop or invest in a turnaround. How a company comes to insolvency – whether by bad management, overextended debt or changing markets – is less interesting than how it shifts gears and reemerges as a success. Everyone enjoys a good redemption story.

As one way to squeeze the vast, long-horizon idea of sustainability into modern, short-term-focused business language, we might look at our home planet as a candidate for a corporate turnaround.

In a corporate turnaround, ideas that might have seemed radical in normal business are suddenly reasonable. Strategies that reinvent the brand for a new market, speak to a new kind of business offering, or jettison old and debilitating priorities are designed to return a business to fundamentals and relevance. The goal is long-term survival versus the near-term pain suffered by investors, creditors, employees and customers.

Is Lee Iacocca’s late-‘70s rescue of Chrysler the greatest turnaround in U.S. history? Where, by comparison, do we rank IBM’s 1990s reinvention amid the onslaught of tech startups? Does Apple’s journey back from the brink to world domination eclipse them all?

The case for Earth, Inc.’s insolvency is in overshoot. The demand for Earth’s resources is greater than Earth’s ability to provide them over the long term. Put another way, Earth regenerates its reserves of natural capital – cash inflow – slower than humanity draws against it. Our consumption represents Earth, Inc.’s cash outflow. A company with negative cash flow cannot cover its bills indefinitely and will not remain liquid.

“August 19 is Earth Overshoot Day 2014, marking the date when humanity has exhausted nature’s budget for the year,” says the Global Footprint Network, a leading crusader against ecology insolvency, in its announcement last year. “For the rest of the year, we will maintain our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We will be operating in overshoot.”

As the late Stanley Goodman wrote in his 1982 executive handbook "How to Manage a Turnaround," a turnaround produces “a noticeable and durable improvement in performance, to turn around the trend of results from down to up, from not good enough to clearly better, from underachieving to acceptable, from losing to winning."

This might also suit as a definition of modern sustainability. An effective turnaround, in the case of Earth, Inc., might be to achieve a positive cash position with its natural resources replenished at faster rates than humanity can draw against them.

There is no lack of “corporate renewal” advice on the Internet. The Turnaround Management Association, as one source, is a Chicago-based nonprofit organization of more than 9,300 members in 49 chapters around the world. “Weak financial function,” it says, is one of the signs of corporate trouble.

“A company with excessive debt, stringent covenants, and inadequate equity capital is operating with little or no margin for error,” the association says. “Credit is overextended, inventories are accumulating, and fixed assets are underutilized. The introduction of better working capital policies and improved capacity utilization decisions are clearly warranted in such cases. Yet, incumbent management instead often engages in debilitating attempts to grow the company out of its problems.”

If we decide that Earth, Inc. is 1) in corporate distress and 2) beyond the help of small, incremental adjustments, there is a fairly clear turnaround blueprint to follow next.

• Analyze the situation: Dispassionate fact-finding, synthesis, stakeholders and their expectations, risk, issues that drive or restrain the situation, root causes, scope of the challenge


• Lead: Clear-minded, steadfast new bosses who embody the credibility to lead through the necessary repairs and changes, bold new ideas and priorities, transformative new mission and vision


• Craft a strategy: Blue-sky planning, vivid outcomes, tactics on a clear timetable, markers of success, capacity for error, reinvention


• Restructure: Asset triage, stakeholder mobilization, executing on hard choices, communication, back to fundamentals


• Evaluate success: Evidence of improvements, stability, solvency.

Wilmington, Delaware-based turnaround specialist Alex Wolf is even more explicit.

“[Turnaround] means doing what has to be done – when it has to be done,” he writes on his website. “It also means not playing favorites. It means doing all of the essentials, and letting some other things go. Turnarounds are not big on formality, but big on real business discipline. Furthermore, in turnarounds, time is always of the essence.”

Instead of resource overshoot putting Earth, Inc.’s cash flow in the red, maybe the value-destruction threat comes from process inefficiency – like global warming – leading to breakdowns of critical operations.

To what degree, if at all, is Earth, Inc. in distress in this case? Are the required fixes big enough to warrant an aggressive, maybe radical, turnaround strategy?

“Today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change,” President Barak Obama said in a weekly address released on video for Earth Day 2015. “Climate change can no longer be denied or ignored.”

In a very clear appeal for action, this executive of Earth, Inc. has identified climate change as the greatest threat to ongoing operations. Yet, there is no real call from senior stakeholders demanding radical, immediate turnaround strategies to protect value.

As one indicator, PwC’s annual survey of CEOs, released in January 2015 to coincide with the annual World Economic Forum, didn’t even include climate change among the critical threats to business – for lack of interest in the subject, according to one report. This mismatch of threat and response remains a frustration for Earth, Inc. and a continuing vulnerability that is hard to imagine being tolerated in other business contexts.

One of the Seven Big Ways to Fail is “stubbornly staying the course.”

“Redoubling your investment in your current strategy in response to market signals is a strategy in itself, and it can lead to disaster,” warns the Harvard Business Review article, sharing wisdom back in 2008. “Executives too often kid themselves into thinking that a problem isn’t so severe or delay any reaction until it is too late. Eastman Kodak stuck to its core in the face of a blatant danger: digital photography. “

As we know, Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012, emerged from it in 2013 with a narrowed focus on commercial imaging and graphics, and is now a shadow of its former self.

A turnaround requires action and sacrifice. According to one recap of history’s greatest corporate turnarounds, Iacocca made two decisions to save Chrysler:

1. He asked for a bail out from government, later repaid with interest.


2. He launched innovative products that won customers in the 1980s.

As more recent Chrysler news suggests, the recovery in this case was not everlasting. However, we might look at the relevant lessons for Earth, Inc.

Value-creating inputs are at risk. The United Nations has predicted a shortfall of 40 percent in drinking water by 2030. What begins to sound more reasonable? Drinking treated sewage water? Relocating populations from water stressed regions? Do we give up almonds, beef and walnuts – the three most water-intensive foods by weight?

Is a turnaround in order?

Image credit: Pixabay

Ian Edwards is a sustainability consultant based in New York City and graduates in May from Bard’s MBA in Sustainability. His previous post was Sustainability: What’s the End Game?

By Stefan Grosjean

Mobile technology has significantly changed the way people approach daily tasks – and while it began with the smartphone, the trend has now made its way into our homes. While the process is already in motion now, in 10 years it will be ubiquitous.

In fact, by 2022, the average home is expected to have 500 smart devices. Say goodbye to the laborious process of pressing coffee, and say hello to waking up to a machine-made cup that started brewing automatically 10 minutes before your alarm rang, because it was synced with your phone. That will be the new normal.

Of course, the Internet of Things (IoT) will make our lives easier – but what’s more exciting is its potential to significantly change the way we consume energy. In just one decade or less, consumers will have more control over their own energy consumption than ever before. Instead of sitting on the sidelines, the Internet of Things revolution will empower everyday people with actionable insights to help them lead more sustainable lives. Here are three predictions on how IoT will continue to change the energy space by 2025.

The end of light switches

Within 10 years, light switches will be archaic objects. Your devices will be able to automatically sense when you’re home – and how you move through the home – using a beacon in your smartphone (such as iBeacon, which was activated in iOS 7). This technology works by emitting a low-energy Bluetooth signal, which devices can detect and then use to estimate proximity. While retail stores have already begun implementing this (for example, to track how close you are to a check-out counter), we expect that the residential sector will account for the next big wave of adoption. In fact, Bluetooth receivers in your home will soon be able to interact with each other to determine your exact location through triangulation. The benefit to users? Less manual activity and smarter, more intuitive automation.

In addition to living more conveniently, we’ll also see a disruption of certain industries as a result of this shift. For example, because there will no longer be a need to drill holes in the walls to install switches, electricians will become consultants rather than installers, helping people program their homes wirelessly.

Clean, distributed energy on the rise

Climate change science is now indisputable, and we need to begin acting now to combat the human-produced effects. The good news? We’re already seeing positive signs.

Energy is becoming more distributed: It is moving from giant coal-powered burners to localized sources, like small-scale solar and wind facilities. According to the EPA, energy-generating companies expect to add more than 20 gigawatts of capacity to the power grid this year alone. This is dominated by wind (9.8 GW), natural gas (6.3 GW) and solar (2.2 GW), which combine to make up 91 percent of the total additions. Furthermore, more households are installing solar panels, as prices for rooftop photovoltaic systems have dropped 29 percent from 2010 to 2013.

The challenge? We can’t program the sun or the wind based on our energy needs, which is why storage is becoming critically important. We need to understand how to store excess power when we have it, so that we avoid disasters when we don’t.

By 2025, more and more people will adopt residential energy-monitoring devices like Smappee. In fact, early adopters are already learning how to optimize their own production and consumption, becoming micromanagers of their own grids. By bringing together different measurements – from weather patterns to local energy prices – devices like Smappee can tell users when energy will be the cheapest or most expensive, delivering a truly connected service. In the future, as the need to micromanage resources becomes even more critical, this type of technology will move to the mainstream.

A shift in power – from utilities to consumers

Today, energy intelligence is largely controlled by utilities. In the U.S. alone, 45 million residential smart meters have been installed as of July 2013 – but they are designed primarily to provide data for utilities, helping them restore power after natural disasters or manage peak demand times. These “smart” meters are not smart enough to help users make sustainable choices. They lack true disaggregation, typically providing a backward-looking monthly snapshot.

As the smart home revolution marches on, more people will use devices that can detect energy consumption in real-time, down to the appliance level – independent of any utility. These devices use advanced analytics to help consumers detect hidden energy guzzlers, creating personalized recommendations for users based on data gathered from their own homes. For example, Smappee can analyze your refrigerator’s efficiency and then prompt you to upgrade to a model that will reduce your overall energy use.

Utilities will still be needed in the future, of course, but consumer-centric smart home devices can give people greater insights into how they are using energy, and how they can manage it.

With these trends in mind, I’m optimistic about technology’s potential to tackle some of tomorrow’s largest sustainability challenges. But in order to us to truly control our aggregate energy use, every individual needs to act now. We all need to play a role by taking control of our own consumption. Are you ready to take part?

Image credit: Smappee

Stefan Grosjean is the CEO and founder of Smappee, a global energy management solution. Before Smappee, Stefan established Energy ICT, a Belgium-based company that uses smart meters to deliver insights to businesses. He transformed this startup into an energy-solutions world leader for industrial and commercial enterprises and government agencies. With Smappee, Stefan aims to introduce an easy-to-use product that benefits consumers – and ultimately the planet.

Devices such as Smappee allow users to track and manage their own energy consumption, independent of any utility.

By Anuradha Wadhwani

As the campaign to ban polystyrene packaging snowballs across the world, that foam takeout box will likely become a relic soon. Or maybe not, because even five centuries from now, the foam containers we dispose of today will still be intact in some landfill. Compare that to eco-disposables which end up as compost—and not in overflowing landfills—and you know why it is high time both consumers and businesses took polystyrene alternatives seriously.

Even as the polystyrene foam toxicity debate roils environmental circles and restaurant associations alike, local governments have slowly begun to stamp out the material. From New York in the United States to Fujairah in the UAE and Paris in France, the change is already visible.

As things stand today, a much wider ban seems imminent – and welcome. As we phase out a once ubiquitous product, it’s time we started considering sustainable substitutes.

Here are three renewable alternatives that could seamlessly replace polystyrene containers

Compostable packaging: Diverting waste from landfills to the compost pit

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans trash an estimated 25 billion polystyrene foam cups each year. Compostable foodservice packaging is arguably the biggest trend in the industry right now because it’s an alternative that ‘ecologically-correct’ consumers love. Why? Because compostable containers are made using corn starch, palm fiber, peat fiber and even wheat stocks, and they break down into soil-conditioning compost. This, juxtaposed against the fact that more communities across the world are now compost-ready, certainly tells us that the time is right for businesses and restaurants to switch from polystyrene foam containers to compostable alternatives.

Already, a number of brands worldwide have shown how compostable containers can be used as a practical alternative. Earlier this year, in response to a citywide ban, Dunkin’ Donuts stopped using its signature polystyrene cups at all New York City locations; and several years ago, coffee retailer Tully’s began serving its popular beverages in compostable cups.

The flip side: While it's easy to find compostable and biodegradable alternatives to all varieties of polystyrene foam containers, many of these materials are still being tested for their heat resistance and degree of biodegradability. Pricing is yet another aspect that needs careful evaluation, especially in the context of the average enterprise. Most importantly, if compostable plastics end up in landfills instead of compost bins, the entire purpose is lost (and that's assuming they're truly compostable in the first place). This evidently calls for the retooling of compost collection systems and refinement of bioplastics technology.

Reusable containers and mugs: Time to go back to the basics?

While compostable containers may be touted as an earth-friendly alternative by many, critics complain that, at the end of the day, we’re still using a disposable item that will ultimately burden waste disposal systems. An ideal solution being proposed by some activists in the green brigade is the use of reusable containers – products that don’t find their way into landfills every morning. These reusable containers don’t have to be anything like the regular polystyrene containers that we’re used to. They could be made of ceramics, stainless steel or high-quality plastics.

For instance, the Manchester Christmas market in the U.K. introduced a reuse scheme for mugs and glasses in 2008, which helped prevent hundreds of tons of waste from reaching landfills. The idea is simple: A customer is required to pay a nominal refundable deposit for a glass or mug, or they can choose to buy it as a keepsake. On similar lines, several restaurants in Germany have been serving takeouts in reusable containers against a deposit, which is refunded when customers return the containers. Academic institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Cincinnati are known to use reusable containers in their cafés and dining halls. The container reuse model, besides being replicable, is malleable enough to be customized to the needs of any unit adopting it.

The flip side: For all the talk of reusable containers having a zero impact on the environment, some just ask this one question: What about the carbon footprint of driving to a restaurant and back to simply return a reusable container? And there are others who wonder whether sustainability should come entirely at the cost of convenience in the contemporary world.

Edible containers: Food packaged in food

Earlier this year, KFC announced that it would start selling coffee in edible edible 'Scoffee’ cups in the U.K. Considering that the move comes from one of the largest restaurant chains in the world, it’s unlikely that the company chanced upon the idea. The trend of edible containers or ‘food packaged in food’ is real and could change the way we consume products, literally. A number of innovators are already on the course to commercial success via their edible container ventures.

A method called WikiCells, pioneered by Harvard professor David Edwards, for instance, uses edible gelatinous skin for packaging food products. Loliware, a brand that specializes in edible cups (which, by the way, come in some delightful colors and textures), hopes to make that unsightly pile of disposable cups at parties and offices a thing of the past. From frozen yogurt in an edible skin, to orange juice in a membrane with the same flavor, to baked goods served in a bread-based edible box, the possibilities are endless.

The flip side: Edible containers could potentially free up our landfills, but they do have their set of limitations. Going by the price tags of edible tableware and food containers available on the market, they’re just shy of being a luxury product. And, given that most edible packaging is also hygroscopic and perishable, it carries a massive logistical disadvantage.

Image credit: Transparency Market Research

Having extensively worked as a journalist with leading national dailies in India, Anuradha Wadhwani now writes for Transparency Market Research, a U.S.-based market intelligence firm. Anuradha is passionate about tracking trends across areas such as sustainability, innovative materials and chemicals.

With fairness in the workplace a proven way of building trust, the Institute of Business Ethics has issued a new briefing document examining the ethical issues related to staffing arrangements and employment contracts.

Specifically, it looks at the potential ethical implications of the ‘casualisation’ of the workplace, including zero hours, agency contracts, part-time workers and transfers under TUPE. It also provides some examples of good practice which organisations have put in place to ensure consistency in their treatment of all employees.

This briefing is the second in the mini-series related to issues of fairness in the workplace.

Simon Webley, IBE's research director, discusses the briefing with Dan Johnson, IBE's researcher, here. 

The briefing is free download from the IBE website here.

 

Picture caption: © Wavebreakmediamicro | Dreamstime.com - Smiling Servers Standing Behind The Counter Photo
 

A new report on global diversity in the boardroom from INAC, the international network of executive search consultancies, has found that while progress on the gender divide is being made – only 5% of the world’s largest corporations are women.

In the US, which could feasibly see a female President in the not too distant future, only 17% of Fortune 500 board seats are held by women.

In Latin America, only 28% of companies have a gender equality policy at executive level. In Australia, while there are no formal targets, almost a quarter of directors the top 50 ASX listed companies are female and every single one has female directors on the board. 

There are some interesting anomalies. Turkey is among the top 15 countries in the world for female board members although it still fell behind its European counterparts when it came to the percentage of women participating in the workforce. This was due mainly to the high number of female entrepreneurs running micro businesses.

And while Norway is often seen as one of the most progressive countries, having implemented boardroom quotas in 2003, the number of female CEOs in the region is still very small.

View the full report here.
 

Submitted by Kelly Gray

People are at the heart of FedEx. We’re in the business of connecting people, and we couldn’t do that successfully without the dedication of the hundreds of thousands of people within FedEx. That’s why we strive to create an environment where our team members can contribute and grow and where the values of diversity are woven throughout the organization. This starts with an inclusive culture. After all, different perspectives are critical to business success.

As a global company, FedEx employs 325,000 team members worldwide in more than 220 countries. They’re from different backgrounds and practice their own unique cultural traditions. They speak different languages but they all have one thing in common: They’re FedEx team members.

Other global FedEx employment stats:

• Nearly half (46%) of our U.S. team members are Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latin, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan native or team members of other non-Caucasian ethnicities.

• Since 1992, our company-wide Supplier Diversity Program has promoted the use of small business and those owned by women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, veterans and others throughout our supply chain.

• Women comprise 27% of our global workforce and nearly 22% of global management.

While women are only one aspect of our robust diversity and inclusion efforts, they are a very important part of what used to be a male-dominated industry, and they are in a unique position to drive our company forward. Gender diversity is a priority and an advantage that’s hard to replicate, which is why we are focused on engaging, developing and building a network of women at FedEx. 

At FedEx Ground, we challenge our women to be intentional in their own development by having them identify their career paths and seek out projects they need to take on for their development. We also have a strong focus on purposeful talent management – positioning our women leaders for the right “mission critical roles” and looking to place them on projects that are “high profile”. On top of that, FedEx offers numerous specific targeted Women's Leadership Programs – some from the outside, some developed internally. 

What’s most impressive is how our women’s leadership programs blossomed through grassroots efforts. Women at all levels who have attended one of our formal programs often go back to their location and organize their own meetings. This concept of “paying it forward” for fellow female colleagues reinforces the impact that each of us can have. With this empowerment comes great responsibility. Women in the workplace should and can support each other – as peers, colleagues and confidants.  

Throughout my career, I have been fortunate enough to have a very large network of supportive people, most of whom were women. This is why I find it so important to develop the same network of support for the women of FedEx that I have enjoyed during the course of my career.

To learn more about Women in Aviation, visit the FedEx Blog.

By Robert Frisbee

Climate change is the issue of our time. Each of us approaches this enormous crisis with many opportunities to address the facts and fears we face. In the past, practical and concerted actions helped diminish or resolve “mega” problems such as polio, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. This provides hope that once again the conscious, collective work of governments, organizations, industry and individuals can change the course of a global threat.

The Green Electronics Council is part of a collective effort to create electronics that address this environmental crisis. Our goal is to provide practical levers so global purchasers of electronics can solve rather than create crisis conditions. The challenge in doing so is two-fold: to rethink how a technology-centric society can continue moving toward sustainability, and to take the appropriate steps to help electronics become a cornerstone of a vibrant and healthy world.

This effort was born in 2001, when a group of technology leaders set out to define green electronics and establish a way to help identify the “best of the best.” The resulting EPEAT system has become an easy and effective rating tool trusted by thousands of purchasers in every corner of the globe. As that system endures, electronics will continue to morph at a breakneck pace, increasing the pressure on manufacturers, purchasers and governments alike to maintain their focus on environmental leadership in our shared technological reality.

Greening the electronics of tomorrow

The electronics of tomorrow hold both great technological promise and the potential for environmental peril. Things like 3-D printers, wearables, converged devices and the cloud will continue to revolutionize how we interact with the world and with one another. Underlying that innovation are new materials, new design challenges, new supply chain concerns, and new questions about disposal and extended life. Each of these topics offers an opportunity for environmental success. And each of them must address the new consumers and regions that are becoming reliant upon these devices.

Individual and institutional purchasers alike live in a world where 24-month product lifecycles are considered long, where recycling and take-back infrastructures vary widely, and where eco-labels compete for environmental and social relevance among fragmented interest groups. In a world where everything we might use – from laptops to clothing to cars – could potentially be e-waste, how we address these challenges is critically important.

These concerns were at the heart of a Green Technology Summit recently co-hosted by Yale University and the Green Electronics Council. More than two dozen technology leaders from the manufacturing, advocacy, recycling and government sectors identified five areas that pose the biggest threats to the greening of electronics. Some were philosophically related, such as a prevailing business model that relies on the proliferation of “disposable” devices with short lifecycles. Others were more focused on solutions, such as the need to develop new infrastructures that enable more effective resource recovery, and discussion of the unknown environmental and economic influence of new manufacturing models on the electronics landscape.

Green electronics and the circular economy

This series of articles with TriplePundit will also address topics that may influence the future of electronics in the circular economy. Which recycling and recovery methods show the most promise? How can we apply the lessons from years of energy-efficiency gains to the next generation of electronics? Will the same design resources spent developing wearables and the Internet of Things also be extended to ensure these new technologies don’t exponentially add to the e-waste epidemic?

Answering these questions requires a global effort, because the community’s response will have worldwide impact. India, China, Brazil and Africa have shown significant interest and progress in environmental performance, in part because they’re at the center of disposal and supply-chain decisions. Yet now and in the future, those regions also represent key consumers of new and “second-life” electronics. As a result, leadership choices made in the United States and European Union will have a tangible impact on the environmental progress in these massive, emerging markets. When it comes to the greening of electronics, it is vital that the world’s leading buyers and manufacturers of electronics reinforce their environmental leadership rather than shy away from it.

In the meantime, our global community must address head-on both the challenges and opportunities that accompany device proliferation and transformation. Some would see the ubiquity of electronics strictly as a threat, a one-way ticket to landfills overflowing with prematurely obsolete devices. Others would recognize that proliferation as an opportunity to develop new service-oriented business models and bring new economies of scale to recycling infrastructures.

Likewise, the rapid transformation of electronics has the potential for both positive and negative outcomes, both of which must be explored and addressed. For instance, these innovative new products are smaller and use less energy than earlier technology, both of which are favorable. However, these incredibly powerful devices require much more energy and water use for their actual production, and their minuscule form factors pose significant challenges to recycling and recovery.

Technological progress always has a yin and yang; advancing the greening of electronics is no different. The design, production, purchase and recycling of electronics can deliver significant environmental benefits, but only when stakeholders seek – and walk – a common path. While devices may proliferate, it is imperative to avoid a commensurate proliferation of environmental standards that aim to race to the bottom rather than reach for aspirational targets. Now is the time to focus on solutions and progress, not mechanics and politics.

The first step on that journey is rethinking what it means to be a green electronic. This decade-old conversation was rejuvenated at Yale, will seek your input through this TriplePundit series, and will engage thought leaders at the Emerging Green Conference in September. Every individual and institution has an important voice – and role – in redefining “green electronics” for the global market. The evolution of technology and our environmental health are inextricably linked, and we must work together to address these challenges head on.

Image credit: Flickr/Fulkrum

Robert Frisbee is CEO of the Green Electronics Council.

Maps have been used by explorers and educators for centuries to provide a visual representation of our world. Most of us can remember first learning about the geography of our planet by the tattered map at the head of an elementary class, or the globe in the school library.

Today's maps are a world away from those vague likenesses that often painted countries more as as two-dimensional caricatures. Today's maps provide a stark relief and can often depict truths about our world that we only guessed at in years' past.

Visualizing drought

One recent example was put out by the World Resources Institute, which developed an interactive mapping tool to help companies understand the breadth of the world's water crisis. The real value of the online program, however, is that it can be calibrated to show the commercial and future impact of drought in affected areas. Water risk affects every part of an integral society, from the success of a textile industry that needs water in order to operate, to the production of food for export in districts that aren't under the threat of drought.

NASA provided another way of looking at this issue in its 2007 maps of the world's vegetation (below). Those areas that are most threatened by drought today reflect the greatest deficit in vegetation and agricultural potential.

North Africa, known for its parched lands, regularly faces water problems when it comes to agricultural development. But according to an article published by CGIAR (an initiative led by the International Water Management Institute), the problem is the way the water is used, not the lack of groundwater. North and South Africa actually have vast aquifers, say the authors, but how they are accessed is vital to their continued use. “In other words, in these regions, aquifers don’t fill up again or at least not nearly fast enough.  When they run out, that’s it.”

Understanding the relationship to the world's natural bio-hemispheres and how to properly manage the water resources that feed them seems to be a major concern these days, as places like California wrestle with impending drought conditions.

Mapping wealth disparity

We regularly hear about the world's inequitable wealth distribution. Initiatives like the Occupy movement helped to galvanize awareness of just how little some populations live on, and how unequal wealth distribution is across the globe.

“Over the last 10 years, economic inequality has been growing, particularly in developed countries where, historically, it had been more contained,” wrote Valentina Pasquali in a 2012 Global Finance article. To demonstrate the growing problem, he provided drawings that showed what the distribution would look like on a map. Compared to wealth distribution in the 16th century (also included), today's statistics are better, but they still reflect a lot of global disparity. The 2015 forecast is based on World Bank Development data.

Slavery has, until recently been thought of as a thing of the past. Today, thanks to organizations like the Walk Free Foundation, we have a visual reference to just how prevalent it still is. The organization's 2014 Global Slavery Index Report paints a disturbing picture of this issue, which affects every nation on earth in one way or another. Commerce and industrial development are often the insidious and invisible links to modern-day slavery.

NASA's patchwork of nighttime images of the earth tell a lot about the world's wealth distribution as well. Again, Africa stands out in stark contrast to 21st century technological development and the challenges that face some of the world's poorest communities.

“In sub-Saharan Africa, 30 percent of health facilities do not have electricity,” notes One.org, underscoring the challenges of communities to improve life-saving services in a technologically driven world.

In the last few years, there has been greater push to expand electricity access to rural communities. Solar initiatives and U.S.-led programs have underscored efforts to increase electricity access for Africa's 589 million residents. Today's maps, which oftentimes provide a visual picture of the world's disparities, are part of the tools that help realize those goals.

Images: 1) Water risk: World Resource Institute 2) Global vegetation and night images: NASA 3) Slavery: Walk Free Foundation