Search

Say goodbye to the traditional lunchroom trays many of us remember from school. Sloppy Joes and chicken nuggets will now have a new home that offers both functionality and environmental benefits for millions of students. The quest to revolutionize school lunches received a major boost this month when the Urban School Food Alliance announced that public school cafeterias across the country plan to roll out compostable meal trays.

The new initiative, several years in the making, is the culmination of a strategic partnership with the country’s largest school districts. Over 2.9 million public school students from New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami-Dade, Dallas and Orlando will soon be served their meals on trays that skip the landfill and position schools to produce and sell compostable food waste.

Launched in the summer of 2012, the alliance has worked to combine purchasing power and coordinate menu creation and food service across the six school districts to keep costs competitive. Collectively, the alliance procures more than $530 million in food and food supplies annually.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the six districts project that the new shift will remove 225 million polystyrene trays from landfills every year. Through collective purchasing power, the school districts managed to source compostable plates, made from pre-consumer recycled newsprint, for less than a penny more than the traditional, low-cost foam trays. Compostable trays, under this partnership, will cost each school district just 4.9 cents per plate -- comparable to that of the current 4 cents per plate cost of traditional foam trays.

“These cities are teaching kids that sustainability and smarter choices can be integrated into every part of your daily life – even your lunch,” said Mark Izeman, senior attorney with the NRDC, one of the nation’s leading environmental and public health organizations and a nonprofit partner of the Urban School Food Alliance. “Shifting from polystyrene trays to compostable plates will allow these cities to dramatically slash waste sent to landfills, reduce plastics pollution in our communities and oceans, and create valuable compost that can be re-used on our farms. We are proud to work with a group of school systems dedicated to driving landmark changes in the health and sustainability of school food.”

With over 50 million students attending public schools in America, models that prove cost effective for tight district budgets have the potential to become widespread adoptions for smaller school systems. This recent move marks a substantial shift for school communities focused on improving the food and health environment within their district, while also promoting environmental awareness and stewardship.

The round-shaped compostable trays will offer several compartments that prevent tilting or hinging, and seek to make the dining experience much more comparable to how students might have their meals served at home. Indirectly, the new trays and subsequent initiatives to increase quality of food, could foster healthier eating habits and a more cohesive dining environment amidst noisy school cafeterias.

In addition to removing traditional foam dining trays, the alliance plans to roll out compostable cutlery during the 2015-2016 school year. The cumbersome “spork” (spoon and fork) utensils will no longer have a place to call home.

Once compostable trays are in place, the alliance plans to tackle healthier food options, including antibiotic-free chicken and pesticide-free produce.

Image credit: Urban School Food Alliance

Editor’s Note: This post is part of a student blogging series on The Business Of Sports & Sustainability. Students attend the Presidio Graduate School which offers the only MBA-level sustainability program focused exclusively on the sports industry. You can follow the series here.

By Marty Meisler

There’s nothing quite like the smell of freshly-cut grass, or the look of a well-manicured ball field. Ask any 5-year-old, grass is the quintessential playing surface! Despite this, artificial turf (turf) is rapidly replacing grass as the surface of choice for sports facilities at all levels. Where community parks, schools and stadiums were once the exclusive domain of grass, roughly 11,000 turf fields are now in use in the U.S., and the industry expects double-digit annual growth.

Many of these facilities switched to turf on the promise of lower maintenance costs, reduced injuries, water savings, elimination of chemicals, year-round access, improved playability and durability. Some of these fields, however, have been switched back to grass, and some, back again to the latest third-generation turf.

All of which begs the question: Which is better, plant or plastic? As always, better depends on your perspective. From a sustainability perspective, an assessment of “better” should consider impacts to people and planet, in addition to the cost and convenience factors identified above. While a lifecycle analysis is beyond the scope of this post, a review of some important considerations that might be included is provided.

Artificial turf: Background

Artificial turf first hit the big leagues in 1966; Monsanto’s Chemgrass (later changed to Astroturf) was installed in the Astrodome after painting the glass roof to reduce glare for the athletes resulted in insufficient light to sustain the grass field. Turf has evolved significantly: from that simple plastic carpet installed on dirt or concrete, to a complex product comprising multiple layers of petroleum-based polymers and drainage systems. The illustration above shows a typical advanced turf system that might be installed in a collegiate or professional stadium, although every product is different.

The innovation most likely responsible for turf’s widespread acceptance was the introduction of infill, used between the blades to provide a more cushioned surface.The most common infill materials are crumb rubber, made from ground-up car and truck tires, or a combination of crumb rubber and silica sand. It is estimated that crumb rubber, also used for cushioning on playgrounds, is responsible for diverting 50 percent of used tires, which might otherwise end up in landfills or incinerators. 

Concerns with turf

Three main concerns should be considered in purchasing decisions when assessing the sustainability of turf: exposure to chemicals in the crumb rubber infill, the heat-island effect and disposal at the end of usable life.

Safety of crumb rubber infill: Prompted by a report of a cancer cluster among young soccer players, especially goalies, the EPA conducted a “limited-scale” study on crumb rubber. The inconclusive study identified 30 compounds or materials that may be found in tire rubber, including carbon black, lead, mercury, benzene and halogenated flame retardants that would also be present in crumb rubber. Tires are considered to be hazardous waste in some states, and some of these constituent chemicals are known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

Heat-island effect: As a plastic product with dark rubber infill, turf gets really hot on warm days. It is not uncommon for temperatures to be 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit above that of adjacent grass fields. The record reported temperature was 200 degrees on a 98-degree day. Higher temperatures, in addition to posing a health risk, also increase the off-gassing of volatile chemicals from crumb rubber. Spraying water on the field can help mitigate the heat.

Disposal: Constituents of turf include polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, styrene butadiene rubber and polyurethane, which are theoretically reusable or recyclable, if the turf is deconstructed to separate the materials. Currently, this cannot be done onsite, and shipping costs are generally prohibitive. As a result, most turf is either landfilled or incinerated at the end of its eight- to 10-year life. The volumes are staggering. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that by 2017, over 1,000 turf fields will be replaced annually. A typical sports field is roughly 80,000 square feet, consisting of 400,000 pounds of infill and 40,000 pounds of turf. For 1,000 deconstructed fields, that totals 80 million square feet of turf weighing 40 million pounds, along with 400 million pounds of infill. Landfilling one field’s worth generally costs $30,000 to $60,000.

Issues with grass

I don’t want to give the impression that grass is without its faults. Like other monocultures, grass requires a lot of maintenance: mowing, as well as large quantities of water and chemicals, including fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides -- all with associated environmental impacts that include greenhouse gas emissions from petroleum use and manufacture of chemicals, contamination of waterways from storm water run-off, production of methane gas if trimmings are landfilled, and potential exposure to these chemicals.

Benefits of grass

On the other hand, the benefits of grass playing fields include infiltration and treatment of storm water, carbon dioxide capture and production of oxygen, cooling of surrounding areas through transpiration, and habitat for a variety of organisms. For athletes, grass is a naturally forgiving surface.

As the father of a budding soccer superstar, in addition to considering turf’s sustainability, I find myself even more concerned with potential health effects and wonder whether my superstar should play on artificial turf at all. I’m inclined to follow the precautionary principle until turf is proven to be safe for children as well as the environment. What are your thoughts?

Image credit: Used with permission of the Synthetic Turf Council

Marty Meisler is currently pursuing an MBA in Sustainable Management at Presidio Graduate School.  Marty has a Ph.D. in biology; professional experience in water and residential green building; and interests in biomimicry, entrepreneurship, sustainable wine, and chasing soccer balls.

Walmart, the largest food retailer in the U.S., recently announced a new animal welfare policy. It’s a policy animal rights groups are calling groundbreaking as it engages the company’s entire supply chain and covers a wide range of issues from antibiotic use to housing systems.

The policy applies to all of the company's U.S. operations, including its subsidiary, Sam’s Club. Back in October, Walmart announced its commitment to making its food supply chain more sustainable.

The new policy includes the responsible use of antimicrobials, including antibiotics. It asks suppliers to adopt and implement the Judicious Use Principles of Antimicrobial Use from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), which states that when veterinarians decide to use antimicrobials they “should strive to optimize therapeutic efficacy and minimize resistance to antimicrobials to protect public and animal health and well-being.” In other words, antimicrobials should be limited to animals that are sick or at risk.

The policy asks suppliers to be proactive in eliminating animal abuse, including:

• Reporting cases of animal abuses and taking corrective action.


• Finding and implementing solutions to address concerns about housing systems, painful procedures, and euthanasia or slaughter.


• Providing progress reports to Walmart and publicly reporting on their corporate animal welfare position annually.

“Walmart is committed to selling products that sustain people and the environment,” said Kathleen McLaughlin, president of the Walmart Foundation and senior vice president of Walmart sustainability, in a statement. “We have listened to our customers, and are asking our suppliers to engage in improved reporting standards and transparency measures regarding the treatment of farm animals.”

Walmart’s new animal welfare policy embraces the Five Freedoms of animal welfare by the Farm Animal Welfare Council:

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – by providing ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.


2. Freedom from Discomfort – by providing appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.


3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease – by ensuring prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.


4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.


5. Freedom from Fear and Distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Mercy For Animals led intense campaigning against Walmart

The animal welfare group, Mercy For Animals (MFA), led what it describes as an “intense campaign” against Walmart. Part of that campaign included footage of “extreme” animal abuse at Walmart pork suppliers across the U.S. taken by MFA. The campaign also included over 150 protests at Walmart stores, full-page newspaper ads, mobile billboards circling the company’s headquarters in Arkansas, 640,000 petition signatures on Change.org and celebrity endorsements.

Walmart’s new policy proves that the retail giant is capable of appropriately responding to campaigns led against it. The wide reach of the company signals that the “era of confining farm animals in cages will come to an end,” as Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S., wrote in a blog post. That's good news for the millions of farm animals across America.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

Have you ever just wanted to pick up and leave the foundation you call home? Kiruna knows the feeling.

Kiruna, a town in northern Sweden, built its riches upon the vast seam of iron ore, but the massive mine is now sinking the city of 23,000 residents. Now faced with a crisis, the town of Kiruna is moving to avoid catastrophe.

Northern Sweden is not the most welcoming place to build a city. With long, brutal winters and short, mild summers, Kiruna’s climate doesn’t exactly scream city material, but the iron resources that lie underneath it scream Mecca.

The Sweden-owned Luossavarra-Kiirrunavaara AB mining company (LKAB) founded Kiruna in 1900 and quickly turned it into the largest iron ore extraction site in the world, producing 90 percent of all the iron in Europe. The company’s iron supply on the outskirts of the town was diminishing, so in 2004, LKAB thought it best to dig its shafts toward the city’s heart, leaving the buildings vulnerable.

For more than 10 years, residents of Kiruna have wondered what the fate of their town would be. Residents have put their lives on hold, unwilling to make investments in a town that they know could up and vanish at any moment. They finally have an answer.

The town, thanks to visionary architects, is moving 1.86 miles east of its current location. A new town square is already under construction, and LKAB allocated more than $612 million for the project that’s expected to build a high school, fire station, community center, library and swimming hall. The mining companies will also compensate homeowners the value of their house plus 25 percent.

Kiruna is due for a major facelift: The city will be hardly recognizable once the construction is completed. The town’s suburban, traditional-housing style will be vetted to an apartmentalized and centralized neighborhood that is expected to encourage a younger atmosphere.

The new Kiruna will have narrower streets to protect pedestrians from the wind, making the harsh Scandinavian winters just a little more pleasant. The plan will turn the city into a more walkable district, but it won’t happen overnight. Officials have suggested that the city will take 85 years to fully escape the mine. The town isn’t as much moving as it is inching east with each new building sprouting up and each old one falling down.

Bits and pieces of old Kiruna will be preserved into the new city, which will keep the same name, including Sweden’s prettiest public building, Kiruna Church, as voted by the Swedish people in 2001.

Kiruna could see great success from this permanent solution to run from a disaster. Anthropologists hope women will be encouraged to stay in the male-dominated region and also hope tourism will increase once the city’s makeover is completed.

The city could also set the precedent and be a trailblazer for other areas facing either rough economic or climate issues.

Sea-level rise is likely to destroy high-density areas if there isn’t action taken to minimize the harm. Major moneymaking cities like Miami, New Orleans and Venice are all susceptible to annually-increasing sea-level rise due to a changing climate. Popular tourist countries like the Maldives and Bangladesh could also be washed away if left alone.

One thing's for sure as Kiruna moves: The Northern Lights will be just as beautiful 1.8 miles to the east.

Image credits: 1) KERENHAPPUCH C and 2) James Losey

 

Hey, Fitbit-wearers: Tracking calories is cool, but saving lives is legit. Enter Lifebits. The wearable technology you can invent to save lives. (It doesn’t matter that it sounds like a cereal brand.)

A recent study shows that fitness tracker owners stop using the wearable devices after an average of six months. UNICEF says that these unwanted wearables can save lives in developing countries.

The organization just joined forces with design firm Frog and smartphone chip maker ARM. They created a global competition to challenge designers, technologists, scientists and all other badasses (aka, experts in any field) to join forces and create “Wearables for Good.”

The mission? Find solutions to problems plaguing women and children in developing countries. Why wearables? Because technology is the newest secret weapon in the war chest of ways to defeat bad bacteria, natural disasters and all other less than ideal things in the world.

The effort is part philanthropy and part business. UNICEF states: “It is predicted that the revenue from smart wearable devices will generate $22.9 billion in revenue by 2020. As it grows, the market will expand beyond devices aimed mostly at consumers living in developed economies to include products and services that support the needs and aspirations of people around the world living in developing markets or in low-resource geographies.”

ARM hopes to improve its product and licensing sales, as well as generously suggest that its processor chips be included in wearables. These new T4D (technology for development) campaigns are hot and also make for a good hashtag: #T4D.

So, what’s the problem, and how can you help? So glad you asked. Here’s the list of primary problem categories with examples:

1. Alert/Response

Problem: Fires scourged three Nairobi slums for three months in 2011. An estimated 25,000 people were left homeless. Fires are common in slums due to indoor stoves, trash burning, faulty wires and cold people trying to stay warm. Homes are close together, so fires spread rapidly. Alleys between homes are tiny, so evacuation and fire control are difficult and chaotic.

Need: A warning system that tells the community to “get outta here!” via alarms and mobile texts.

2. Diagnosis/Treatment/Referral

Problem: Children under 5 are most likely to die from infections, pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, measles and HIV/AIDS. Around 70 percent of these children could be easily cured if they saw doctors sooner. Every day, 1,000 women die from issues related to childbirth; 99 percent of them are in developing countries. This is not okay.

Need: An easy way to non-clinically review and diagnose viral and bacterial infections.

3. Behavior change

Problem: 1 in 4 children under 5 years old have stunted growth due to malnourishment. The most crucial hold-your-breath time is during pregnancy and the child’s first two years.

Need: Find a way to provide mothers and babies with nutrition, access to basic health care, and instruction on feeding practices for children. They don’t have Flintstones gummies.

4. Data collection/Data insights

Problem: An estimated 230 million children have undocumented births. Without a government birth certificate, the child may prematurely enter marriage, the labor market or armed forces.

Need: Find a way for children to be officially registered despite living in the middle of nowhere, having limited supplies and lacking data collection capabilities.

Finding a sustainable, wearable solution

Once the wearables are designed and presented, judges will ask questions such as: Is the wearable comfortable, is it necessary, is it sustainably powered? Can it be scaled? How much of an improvement is it? Is it cost effective and easily maintained? Would you want your mom to use it?

Pressing challenges the judges are likely to focus on include:

• Geographic distances to facilities


• Low-quality services


• Inadequately skilled personnel


• Time constraints


• Competing economic motivations


• Social marginalization

Feeling like you’re in a leg lock? Don’t give up yet. The fashion fun is about to begin.

Wearables can be worn inside the body (cochlear implants, pacemakers, ingestible devices), on the body (head, ears, eyes, chest), or by a hospital bed near the body.

They can be low tech or high tech. Electronics are optional. A wearable is simply something worn as a solution to a problem. One low-tech device UNICEF uses (pictured right) is a multicolored arm measuring tape that shows at a glance whether a child is receiving enough nutrition. Green is good, yellow is concerning, red means “Get that kid to a doctor!”

Last year Intel also hosted a Make it Wearable competition, and the winners had incredible designs: a wearable drone camera that can fly, a low-cost robotic hand for amputees, and a glove that records data from goods handled.

Those are awesome devices for first-world countries. Now UNICEF is upping the ante by saying “Okay, now go save lives” and generally without electricity, or water, or access to anything but dirt. I can’t wait to see what’s invented. It’s going to be mind-blowingly simple, beautiful and, above all, life-saving.

This is the first project launched by ARM and UNICEF. ARM can’t get enough of UNICEF though and also agreed to work with the organization’s 14 Innovation Labs working on 270 projects. Most labs are located in developing countries. Each lab brings together business, universities, governments and civil society to develop solutions.

Ready to get started? Click here to sign up. If you win, you’ll receive $15,000 in funding and mentorship from ARM and Frog.

Making a wearable for good isn’t on your bucket list? You don’t have to work for UNICEF or participate in a competition to help innovate. UNICEF’s Innovate for Children website states that the organization partners with centers around the world in various development and implementation phases. You might find a project that fits your niche.

In the words of Kid President “This is life people! You’ve got air coming through your nose! You’ve got a heartbeat! That means it’s time to do somethin’! […] This is your time, this is my time. This is our time. We can make every day better for each other. We’ve got work to do. […] We can cry about it, or we can dance about it. You were made to be awesome. Let’s get out there! It’s everybody’s duty to do good and give the world a reason to dance.”

Image credits: UNICEF Wearables For Good Handbook and website

By Lewis Robinson

These days, if your business isn’t going green, it’s going extinct. Consumers aren’t only looking for businesses that offer high-quality products and competitive prices; they want to know that the organizations that take their money are going to use it to make the world a better place. Recent studies have found that green initiatives can significantly improve a brand's value. Because of this trend, more and more corporations are including green initiatives in their marketing campaigns, in order to show that they are willing to play a part in the push to preserve and sustain the environment.

But beyond simply improving company reputation, taking on an environmentally sound and responsible position benefits businesses in more practical ways as well. For example, many organizations have found that by taking steps to reduce energy use, they end up saving a great deal of money.

These efforts at improving sustainability give brands a boost in value, and help businesses to find success and longevity in their respective markets.

Case studies

One such business that has seen improvements in value perception through its green initiatives is Honda. Due to the rising cost of petroleum fuel, Honda turned its attention toward finding a way to manufacture a more fuel-efficient car. As it implemented this particular green initiative, customers took note, and Honda’s sales figures rose dramatically. Compared to numbers from four years prior, the company's figures improved by 28 percent after launching more fuel-efficient models.

A similar effort was made by GE in 2005 -- when the company publicly declared that it intended to take on clean technology to reduce environmentally harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and also adapt green technology for other uses, such as in locomotives, wind turbines and jet engines. The company saw a rise in consumer satisfaction, and its revenue rose by $6 billion.

Making a difference

As the benefits of sustainability became more apparent, other companies began to follow. Today, green technology, clean technology and sustainable ideas are commodities that many venture capitalists are looking to invest in.

If your business hasn’t already begun to adopt green initiatives -- and talk about them in your marketing campaigns -- you might be confused as to how to go about doing it. The good news is that there are a number of green initiatives that are simple, cost effective and environmentally impactful that you can institute starting today. Here’s how:

1. Start measuring

The easiest way to put your company on the path to sustainability is to reduce your energy use. However, in order to be able to figure out how you can cut back, you’ll first need an accurate idea of how much energy is being used, and where. Keep track of how much is being spent on gas, electric, water and other energy-associated costs, and get a feel for where your organization may be using more energy than it should. When you have this data compiled and presented, it will be much easier for you to know where you should make changes.

2. Cut down on paper use

Despite the reputation that it has gained over the years, paper really is a sustainable resource. However, when 45 percent of office paper ends up being thrown away on the same day that it’s printed, it may make sense for some organizations to switch over to a paperless office environment. Even if you don’t choose to go entirely paperless, consider reducing paper use wherever possible by relying instead on electronic communication. Remember, even if you recycle all of your paper, there is still an energy cost associated with it.

3. Embrace alternative energy

The electric grid is not the only way to get electricity for your company; by investing in on-site solar cells, you’ll be able to generate some (or all) of your own clean energy directly from the sun. If buying and installing solar panels doesn't seem like a possibility, consider purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) from your local utility provider.

4. Involve employees

Although we tend to think of businesses as being run by CEOs and other management, the reality is that it is the employees who actually determine an organization’s direction. If you want your company to be one that recycles, conserves and protects the environment, you had better make sure that the employees are on board. Make things fun by setting energy-conservation goals and providing rewards when those goals are met. The fact is that most people are willing to do what they can to help the environment, but you have to be willing to meet them halfway.

Loud and proud

Once you have begun making strides toward environmental conservation, don’t be shy about letting the world know. Whatever your company does in order to save, sustain, clean, preserve and be efficient, tout that horn and show it off. From ads, to social media pages, to press releases and even your brand logo, take every opportunity to tell your customers exactly how you’re helping save the world. Doing so will aid in lead generation, customer retention and overall company reputation.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Intel Free Press 2) Flickr/Rennett Stowe 3) Flickr/Anton Fomkin

Lewis Robinson is an eco-business consultant specializing in small business and non-profits. He’s helped start multiple corporations and currently freelances as a writer and business consultant.

 

We often hear that sustainability is a hot mess of acronyms that are intimidating to newcomers. We agree. Here's a comprehensive list of acronyms and abbreviations every sustainability professional should know.

Agenda 21
A non-binding, voluntarily-implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.

AODP
The Asset Owners Disclosure Project survey of investors on climate actions

BCI
The Better Cotton Initiative, guidance on fair labor and sustainable cotton production

B Corp
B Corp, or B Corporation, is a business certification from B Labs.

Sometimes people call Benefit Corporations "B corps," too. A benefit corporation is a legal business construct, like an LLC or C Corp, except it has sustainability at its core.

BREEAM
Building Research Establishment Global's Environmental Assessment Method for green building

BSR BSR is a global nonprofit organization with member companies and a widely attended annual conference.

CCS
Carbon capture and storage (or sequester) projects

CDP
Formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project (now just CDP); issues corporate surveys on climate change, water and forestry, with additional supply chain reporting guidance.

CDSB
Climate Disclosure Standards Board; provides guidance on climate reporting, and proposed stock exchange listing rule on climate emissions reporting.

CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CO2e
Carbon dioxide equivalent -- frequently used in emissions reporting.

COP
Communication on progress -- a reporting requirement of being a signatory to the United Nations Global Compact.

CSR or CR
Corporate social responsibility or corporate responsibility, commonly used interchangeably

DFPRW
Declaration on fundamental principals and rights to work

DJSI
Dow Jones Sustainability Index

EEIC
Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition: a code of conduct for the electronics supply chain

EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment

EPD
Environmental product declaration

ESG
Environment, social and governance disclosure. Used interchangeably with CSR.

FiT Feed-in tariff, the price renewable energy generators are paid by utility companies for their energy

FLA
Fair Labor Association

FSC
Forest Stewardship Council, creates standards for sustainably-harvested woods and fibers.

FT
Fair Trade

G3/G3.1
Global reporting initiative's third generation of sustainability reporting guidelines

G4
Global reporting initiative's fourth generation of sustainability reporting guidelines
(for more info check out our courses)

GEP
Gender equality principals

GHGP
Greenhouse gas protocol for emissions reporting

GIIRS
Global impact investing rating system; third-party ratings for impact investments

GISR
Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings

GRI
Global Reporting Initiative

ILO 
International Labor Organization core labor standards

IR/IIRC
Integrated reporting framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council

ISO 14001
International Standards Organization's Environmental Management System

ISO 26000
ISO social responsibility standard

ISO 31000
ISO risk management standard

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find
pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges

See also ICUN Red List of threatened species

KPI
Key performance indicator

LCA
Lifecycle assessment or Lifecycle analysis

LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for green buildings

MDGs
United Nations Millennium Development Goals

OSHA
U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, provides standards for workplace safety

RECs
Renewable Energy Credits -- similar to carbon offsets, but just for renewable energy

REDD
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, a U.N. forestry program

RSPO
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

SASB
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board; offers sustainability accounting standards by industry

SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment

SFI
Sustainable Forestry Initiative

SDGs
U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

SRI Socially responsible investing

ULE
UL Environment, a standards board

UNDHR
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

UNGC
U.N. Global Compact; companies endorse and report on their progress in meeting 10 CSR principals

USGBC
U.S. Green Building Council; responsible for the LEED standard for green building

VCS
Verified carbon standard, carbon offset certification body

 

Bonus lists for related industries

Clean Energy Finance 101 from the Yale Center for Business and the Environment Glossary of Energy Efficiency Terms from Conservation Energy Group Energy Education
For the science behind the energy sector from the University of Calgary

--

All right, you made it this far. What am I missing? Tweet @jenboynton to send me your suggestions, and I'll add them to the list!

h/t to Tracey Rembert who shared a version of this list with Ceres participants

Image credit: DAVID MELCHOR DIAZ, Flickr

When President Barack Obama signed his historic climate change agreement with China last year, there were those among his opponents who felt he had given away too much without asking for enough in return. Never mind that the U.S. has been emitting carbon far longer and has already had the opportunity to bring most of our population out of poverty (at least compared to China).

Yes, the U.S. set a 26 to 28 percent reduction target for 2025, while China has promised to achieve a declining emissions trajectory starting in 2030. But let’s look at what China is doing. Last year, it spent $83 billion on renewable energy. That’s not only a 39 percent jump over last year and a new record, but it’s also twice what we spent in the States.

China is not alone in this. Countries all across the developing world are making huge investments in renewables. In some cases, they are leapfrogging traditional utility infrastructure, much as they did with cell phones.

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the combined clean energy investment of developing countries, including China, Brazil, India and South Africa, totaled $131 billion in 2014, only 6 percent less than the combined total for developed countries. The gap is narrowing and is expected to close soon. Then, we will be the ones doing the chasing.

By 2030, $7 trillion will be invested in new energy systems, two-thirds of which will come from developing countries. Over 60 percent of that new generation capacity will be in the form of carbon-free renewables.

The total OECD energy capacity projected by 2030 is 3,700 gigawatts. By contrast, non-OECD capacity is expected to reach nearly twice that total, or 7,000 GW. The report identifies Kenya, Peru, Taiwan, Morocco, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines as the top attractors of clean energy investment.

What’s the motivator? It’s the fact that 1.3 billion people in the developing world have no access to reliable electricity. Half of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. Renewable energy, which can be installed in smaller increments, is likely the most direct path for getting all of these people out of poverty and into the modern era.

If you’re thinking what I’m thinking, we’d better hope that most of that energy is in the form of renewables. If not, our goose will certainly be cooked.

Pew Research projects a 594 percent increase in renewable energy deployment between 2012 and 2030. Compare that to a 69 percent growth in nuclear, and a 30 percent growth in fossil fuels over the same period.

That’s good news, and it is accompanied by more good news that should relieve some anxiety about China. In response to its horrific air pollution crisis, China is cutting coal consumption quite aggressively. Data from Greenpeace shows an 8 percent drop in coal use during the first four months of this year when compared to last year.

Unfortunately, that good news is put into perspective by a recent Scripps Institute report showing that thinning of the Antarctic ice sheets is happening at an accelerating pace. The race goes on, and each passing day brings decisions being made at all levels of society that could tip the scales in one way or another.

Image credit: MainstreamRP: Flickr Creative Commons

By Anum Yoon

This year’s Sustainable Cities Index reported the top 10 sustainable cities of 2015. The Index provided an overview of 50 of the world’s cities and what their performance rankings were in relation to the factors of people, planet and profit – the three pillars of the triple bottom line. Europe dominated the top 10 overall rankings, holding seven of the 10 places. And with good reason: Europe has developed an impressive environmental legislation over the past 40 years. They have continuously demonstrated how improving the environment could drive innovation and job creation, while improving the quality of life for everyone.

But seeing those European cities on the list isn’t what impressed me. I was more fascinated by the fact that the remaining three rankings were held by Asian cities. While no American city made the top 10 list (with Boston holding 15th place), three cities proved that global sustainability is becoming increasingly dependent on the implementation of effective environmental policies in the developed cities of Asia.

Here are the sustainable cities in Asia that were successful in finding a better equilibrium in terms of development and progress:

Seoul: Ranked No. 7

Over the past 60 years, South Korea has grown from a war-torn nation to a major world power, becoming the 13th largest economy in terms GDP. This is quite impressive for a nation with a population of only 50 million. The capital and largest city, Seoul, is the product of this rapid economic growth. With over 25.6 million people living in the metropolitan area, Seoul shares the same problems as other large cities, including detrimental impact on the environment. It seemed the citizens of Seoul faced the choice between an improved quality of life and helping the environment... Or did they?

Forward-thinkers look to the idealized notion of the “ubiquitous city” in order to strive toward becoming a more sustainable city. The key to the ubiquitous city concept is technology. Seoul is a world leader in terms of digital governance and open data. This includes an extensive high-speed Internet network. In a ubiquitous city, the free flow of data allows citizens to understand their impact on the environment, as well as the best steps to take in order to reduce their negative effect. The idea is that, by improving technology infrastructure, urban residents can shape their lifestyles in an eco-friendly manner. An example of this in action is the Personal Travel Assistant system. This system delivers real-time information of the public transportation network. It allows the user to access information on carbon emissions and other green transportation options.

South Korea has taken this idea a step further by initiating a project on a huge scale,  with the purpose of building the “smart city” Songdo. This city lies near the Seoul airport and has a future projected population of 2 million. This “city on a hill” has the technology and green space to live up to this moniker. It will successfully sustain an underground system of tubes for disposing of waste, universal broadband, integrated sensor networks, and green buildings to truly make it the “city of the future.”

Songdo may soon become the benchmark that the rest of Seoul will work toward, for achieving both a high quality of living and a sustainable city.

Hong Kong: Ranked No. 8

Hong Kong rose to international prominence in the late 1970s, acting as a trading hub between China and the rest of the world. This led Hong Kong to become one of the world’s financial centers that boasts a high GDP and quality of living. This rapid growth, however, also brought about the age-old problems that go hand in hand with urbanization: pollution and environmental degradation. Hong Kong has thus taken steps to curb these negative effects.

Hong Kong has a Council for Sustainable Development, which operates the Sustainable Development Fund. This fund of $100 million is provided to act as financial support for initiatives that will promote awareness for sustainable development, as well as initiatives that encourage sustainable practices. This promotes the active involvement of the citizenry through nonprofit organizations and educational institutions. Leadership in Hong Kong seems to take the view that individual efforts and policy changes will lead to sustainable growth.

Technology has also played an important role in Hong Kong’s sustainability. Citizens of Hong Kong extensively utilize non-motorized and public transit. The Octopus Smart Card makes it easy for users to pay for public transit as well as parking. The smart card can also be used for grocery stores and vending machines. This convenience and usability makes public transit a more desirable option. There are also laws preventing certain types of personal behavior, such as spitting in public, littering, and consuming food or drinks on any public transportation.

Singapore: Ranked No. 10

Singapore has made tremendous progress since its independence in 1965. Lee Kuan Yew, the country's first prime minister, wanted Singapore to outshine other developed countries in areas of cleanliness and efficient transport systems. Singapore's famous chewing gum ban is one of the many successful environmentally-friendly initiatives that are enforced through the legal system. You're even legally required to flush public toilets in Singapore. It's interesting to note that Hong Kong is one of Singapore's biggest admirers in terms of imposing bans and penalties on certain types of "rude" behavior.

Singapore also has something called the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, which outlines a cohesive plan of action for all citizens to follow in order to create a more sustainable city. It targets green and blue spaces, transportation, resource sustainability, air quality, drainage, and community stewardship. Much like Hong Kong and Seoul, Singapore relies on advanced technology and a robust public transportation network.

However, Singapore was able to take on a problem unique to its city -- the need to import potable water from Malaysia -- and turned it into an economic strength. Singaporean policies supporting innovation to solve this problem lead to over 100 companies developing a profitable niche industry in collecting rainwater and recycling water. Their technologies have spread around the globe.

Singapore not only relies on technology, but also on its own citizens. The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint emphasizes community involvement in conserving resources and preserving green spaces.

The future of urbanization

It seems that these three cities have some significant similarities:

1. Robust and convenient public transportation


2. Relatively recent economic growth


3. Utilization of advanced technology


4. High GDP per capita ($30,000+ GDP per capita)


5. Space limitations

Space limitations may be the driving force for these advanced Asian cities and their environmentally friendly innovations. Singapore, Hong Kong and Seoul are all small areas that have space restrictions, and thus high population densities. Where in other places, people can simply spread out (see Los Angeles), these cities cannot. Singapore is a city-state; Hong Kong was historically bordered by not-so-friendly China; and the Seoul metro area is slowly taking over South Korea, with half of the country's population, 25 million people, living in the Seoul metro. Everyone feels the need to live in these cities, even when there is a severe lack of space.

With space constraints, pollution gets worse; there is less green space, more litter and a higher demand for resources. This led these three cities to deal with the sustainability issue in similar ways, which all boil down to infrastructure. Since each city has the wealth to deal with the problem, they do, using technology to improve infrastructure. Infrastructure means more communication between citizens, better recycling efforts, better public transit, better waste disposal and better emissions management.

Image credits: 1) Songdo IBD All others via Flickr - M.Bob & Kenny Teo

Anum Yoon is a writer who is passionate about personal finance and sustainability. As a regular contributor to the Presidio Graduate School’s blog, she often looks for ways she can incorporate money management with environmental awareness. You can read her updates on Current on Currency.

Why is selling sustainability so difficult?

After all “sustainable products, services and behaviors are the future. They are better for business, consumers and the planet, and increasingly consumers are asking for them.”

In addition, “93 percent of global consumers want to see more of the brands they use support worthy social and/or environmental issues, and three out of four teenagers say they want to buy more sustainable products.”

This question and quotes open a new report from BSR and Futerra, aiming to provide an effective framework that marketers struggling with this challenge could use.

However, for marketers losing sleep over the question of how to sell sustainable products and services and wondering if this is the report they’ve been looking for – well, let me just say this, report is not the equivalent of the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem. In other words, your troubles are [probably] not over yet.

Still, the report, titled Selling Sustainability: Primer for Marketers, is a worth read for anyone interested in fusing marketing and sustainability. This is, after all, “the output of a long-standing collaborative effort with the Sustainable Lifestyles Frontier Group and our eight member brands – AT&T, Carlsberg, eBay, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and Waste Management.”

At the heart of the report is framework including three components: offering consumers more value from sustainability, building functional, emotional and social benefits, and taking into consideration that timing matters.

The first component is value. The authors of the report write: “For most sustainable products and behavior campaigns the hard question of 'what’s in it for the consumer?' is still largely unanswered.” To create and deliver greater value for consumers out of sustainable products, marketers need to reduce barriers (i.e. lack of skills, motivation, infrastructure or beliefs) and generate more benefits (functional, social, emotional).

A good example would be electric cars. To make electric cars more valuable for consumers, companies need to reduce barriers like price (see the example of the 2016 Chevy Volt) and range anxiety (building a network of high-speed charging stations) as well as to increase the benefits such as enhancing their fuel-cost savings (functional) or making them status symbols (social).

The second component is an elaboration of the first one, explaining in more detail what functional, social and emotional benefits actually are in the context of sustainability. While this is not part of the report, I believe the best way to explain it is through the lens of the ‘job-to-be-done’ concept, as “designing an innovative customer value proposition begins with genuinely understanding the customer's 'job-to-be-done.'”

This concept is based on the idea that people don’t really buy products or services. They “hire” them to do a job, or as Prof. Theodore Levitt famously put it: “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want to buy a quarter-inch hole.” There are three types of jobs-to-be-done: functional (getting a specific task done or achieving a functional goal), social (how the consumer wants to be perceived by others), and emotional (how the customer feels or wants to feel).

The report’s advice to marketers is to think about creating value by reducing barriers and offering benefits, using these three levels – functional, beneficial and emotional. Then, it suggests, “your value proposition should emerge stronger and clearer.”

The final component is timing – making sure that you reach consumers in the right time and the right place. The right time seems to be important in particular because, as the report explains: “Receptiveness to sustainability messages fluctuates throughout the day. For behavior change campaigns it’s especially important to track these changes. The best moment to affect a habit, like recycling, is to reach the consumer at their point of behavior (PoB).”

Now, the question is whether applying this framework could help marketers overcome “the difference between what consumers say in surveys, and what they go on to actually do.” I believe the answer is no.

Here’s why: First, I think the starting point is not the right one. I don’t think the surveys the report quotes actually reflect the public’s attitudes, or that the only problem is that we didn’t find a way yet to translate these attitudes into action. I believe we need to take findings like “93 percent of global consumers want to see more of the brands they use support worthy social and/or environmental issues” with a grain of salt. Sure, most people would like that, just like most people would like to see world peace, but what does it actually mean in reality? Unfortunately, not much.

Second, reality is messy and complex, as we could learn from a recent report in the New York Times, in which writer Lawrence Ulrich argues, “With bargain gasoline prices putting more money in the pockets of Americans, owners of hybrids and electric vehicles are defecting to sport utility vehicles and other conventional models powered only by gasoline.”

Sure, we can address these situations in terms of the need to reduce barriers (i.e. make hybrid and electric cars cheaper) and find how they can offer more value (functional, social or emotional). Yet, I believe that to truly change consumer behavior at scale, when it comes to sustainability marketers need more than that – they need to think in terms of changing the culture, not their products.

Based on Curt Lewin’s proposal that a person’s behavior is a function of both their personality and their environment (B = f (P,E)) I would suggest that any attempt to reach significant results in selling sustainability should focus on a more systematic attempt to redesign our environment. Anything less than that will lead to incremental results at best.

The reason is simple: In a reality where consumers are bombarded with ‘business as usual’ messages that identify unsustainable consumption with happiness, providing a message saying the opposite is like swimming against the current. It could work in some cases, but in most cases the current wins.

Marketers that truly want to sell sustainability need to think about how they can design a new culture and change the environment in which we live. It is probably more challenging than just redesigning a product or even a business model, but it's probably the only way to sell sustainability to the masses.

Image credit: The Sustainable Lifestyles Frontier Group