by Sofia Ribeiro

High-profile leaders gathered to discuss opportunities in the world of environmental capital at the Eco:nomics Conference, and the identify what the best practices where when applying green marketing. The include: looking for the “low-hanging fruit” for quicker ROI, giving customers reasons to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors, making the message personal by explaining how a consumer’s purchase has direct environmental results, and avoiding a hard sell on environmental benefits.

The Eco:nomics Conference, one of the most popular conferences in the green industry, took place a few weeks ago in Santa Barbara, California. High-profile leaders from Walt Disney, RecycleBank, Yale, GE and The Climate Group, as well as Wall Street Journal’s editors, got together to talk about the real risks and opportunities in the fast-changing world of environmental capital.

One of the topics discussed was green marketing and best practices. These were the main outcomes:

What works

- Companies should focus on improving their own energy efficiency, while emphasizing benefits to local communities. Look for the “low-hanging fruit” for quicker ROI.

- Companies should give customers reasons to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors.

- When it comes to green marketing, provide information about a product’s environmental benefits close to the point of purchase. Make the message personal by explaining how a consumer’s purchase has direct environmental results.

- When providing information to stakeholders, avoid a hard sell on environmental benefits. Instead, engage stakeholders in a dialogue.

- In green marketing, explain the benefits to the environment as part of a bigger value proposition.

- Consider how waste can be an opportunity, not a cost or liability.

- Get a double whammy by undertaking a project that will boost productivity at the same time as cutting emissions.

- When working with nongovernmental organizations, there must be a shared understanding of the goals and constraints of a partnership, with both sides understanding and respecting the rules of engagement.

- To get a project off the ground, consider new forms of financing, both public and private. For instance, it is possible to add solar panels at no upfront cost using a power purchase agreement (PPA).

What doesn’t work

- Participants suggested that the government should not be put in a position “to pick winners and losers” for any technology or business process. Instead, the government should help develop technology-neutral standards.

- Companies cannot use uncertainty over government action on climate change as an excuse to stop innovating.

- Firms cannot simply talk about being green. Sustainability must become part of a company’s DNA.

- Avoid politicizing sustainability. Instead, explain the economics behind adopting energy efficiency and reducing environmental impacts.

- When working with nongovernmental organizations, do not strike a deal that has no substance. Be sure to carefully consider the people and resource needs of a partnership.

- For best results when financing energy efficiency or other environmental projects, the market requires more certainty in government policy.

Reprinted with permission from Green Economy Post

The secret is that major corporations, even in the United States, are voluntarily signing up and reporting their carbon.

Organizations like the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Global Reporting Initiative are tracking corporate emissions at the request of companies. CRD Analytics, which has a leading index of the Sustainability 100, noted that these companies outperformed the majority of financial index benchmarks like the S&P 500, the Dow Jones and the NASDAQ composite.

Growing Board Responsibility

According to a poll taken by the Global Reporting Institute, 46% of the Fortune 500 have a board member responsible for climate change. Graham Noyes, Of Counsel in the Energy and Telecommunications practice group at Stoel Rives LLP in Seattle, noted that carbon is becoming increasingly critical to successful companies. When asked about a recent SEC clarification of rules for reporting on climate risk, he said,

“It’s a sign of the times. Carbon matters to shareholders. Five years ago the SEC announcement wouldn’t have happened, but the center point has moved over time.”

Climate Risk-It’s a technical term

What is climate risk? According to the SEC bulletin, risks can be broken into four groups:

* Impact of Legislation and Regulation on company

* Impact of International Accords like Cap & Trade

* Indirect Impact of Regulation Business Trends resulting from legal, technological, political or scientific developments that may create new risks or opportunities for companies relative to their competitors

* Physical Impacts of Climate Change or the actual or potential material impacts of environmental matters and how it affects the company’s ability to do business.

Of these factors, a Global Reporting Initiative poll showed that companies see more regulatory opportunities and physical risk. Although SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro declined to be drawn into the climate change debate, the poll suggests that changes in climate worry companies.

In terms of coping strategies, the same poll showed that most industries are actively looking to reduction. Japan, which may fear restaints on industry, favored emissions trading. With the exception of companies reporting from Russia, most were also engaging with policy makers, especially in Europe, Australia and the US. Since many large, industrialized companies feel themselves ahead of the carbon game, they may well be looking to keep their competitive edge by supporting standards that favor their approach to carbon mitigation.

Strategies of the Most Exposed

While all this maybe true of industry, what of the most exposed, utilities and petroleum companies like American Electric Power (AEP) and Public Service Enterpise Group (PSEG)? Both of these large utilities have seen it coming and have been developing strategies for some time.In 2004, an independent subcommittee of AEP’s board of directors reported to shareholders about the impact of proposed federal legislation and regulations for reducing regulated emissions and carbon dioxide. The report reviewed the actions available to control those emissions, provided economic analysis of the various control scenarios, and recommended actions for going forward.

PSEG’s Ronald Drewnowski, the Director of Environmental Strategy and Policy, noted that transparency is critical, and has been an advocate of reporting standards—especially a national one that will level the playing field for utilities inside and outside of current state and regional regulations, such as RGGI (Regional Green House Gas Initiative). PSEG has also invested over a billion dollars in energy efficiency and renewable energy, including nuclear the possibilities of nuclear.

Lessons learned

As it stands now, regulation is a patch work of regional, state and agency rules and regulations. Since the Supreme Court recently mandated the EPA to regulate emissions from transportation, some federal oversight is coming. While large companies admittedly have the resources to be first leaders, they are smart to be taking steps now that put in place the tools that will keep them competitive in the future. Learning before the fiscal carrots and sticks are in place can lead to a much smoother transition.

For those who are climate change skeptics, it’s not about climate. It’s about business and staying competitive. As SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro remarked:

“We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes. Nothing that the Commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics. Today’s guidance will help to ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied.”

Reprinted with permission from The Green Economy

By Tina Casey

Pitchers and catchers don’t report for spring training until February 18 but the Minnesota Twins are already getting a jump on the 2010 baseball season by installing a huge new rainwater harvesting and recycling system at the team’s new home, Target Field.

The new Rain Water Recycle System was designed by by Minneapolis-based Pentair, a global water innovator. Using a gigantic underground water storage tank the size of a freight car, the team aims to save more than two million gallons of water yearly - and that’s all part of a bigger sustainable plan for Target Field.

The Minnesota Twins and Sustainable Baseball

Sure, the Twins are aiming for a pennant this year, but they’re also racing to get LEED (Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design) certification for their spanking new baseball stadium. The new park, which broke ground in 2007, went through a $2.5 million redesign to earn LEED points for water and energy use, and for other building elements. The park started out with points in its pocket because of its location by mass transit, and it also got points for rehabbing an existing site and using local building materials.

Rainwater Harvesting and Recycling

Rainwater harvesting is catching on for individual home use, mainly as a way to keep the yard green without having to use tap water. The Twins are stepping up the game by using Pentair’s technology to purify rainwater, so it can be used for human consumption as well as maintenance and field irrigation. Filtration systems are also being installed in suites, team areas and offices to encourage the use of tap water instead of disposable plastic bottles. The team also plans to promote the new system with Minneapolis-based green sports licensing company GreenMark to raise fan awareness, dubbing Pentair the “Official Sustainable Water Provider” for the Twins.

Rainwater Harvesting and the Big Picture

Getting large facilities like Target Field off the conventional water supply grid is one strategy for a sustainable future. The off-grid trend also applies to energy; for example, municipal like sewage treatment plants are starting to install solar panels to run giant pumps and other equipment. On the other hand, the water harvesting solution may be problematic in arid regions, especially parts of the western U.S. where longtime water rights issues currently impose legal restrictions on rainwater harvesting.

Image: Rainwater by taiyofj on flickr.com.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

By Abhijit Khanna

Reflective of the mixed news coming out of last week’s international climate change summit (with some politicians and environmental groups hailing forward progress while others deride the agreements as not going nearly far enough), on December 14th, 2009 the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) in partnership with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) announced a report providing insight into the efforts of companies worldwide to report their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies. The report, entitled “High Impact Sectors: the Challenge of Reporting on Climate Change.” notes that despite encouraging signs from businesses in emerging markets such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa, standards for voluntary corporate climate change disclosures can be improved. Better reporting is ultimately dependent on the existence of a concrete political framework.

According to Teresa Fogelberg, deputy chief executive at GRI, although governments negotiate commitments for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it is ultimately companies that will enact and realize these reductions.

“It is important to consider that while governments spend months and years in climate negotiations, it is companies who are in fact the proverbial elephants in the room. What I find particularly encouraging is that we can look towards many large companies from emerging markets in China, India and South Africa as leaders who are setting concrete reduction and adaptation targets, and measuring progress made towards their targets using a common framework.”

Similarly, Roger Adams, executive director of policy, ACCA, notes that “as reporting drives behavior, the extent to which businesses [in emerging economies] continue to embrace climate change reporting” will have a tremendous impact on mitigating climate change. One of the findings of the report is that the reporting performance of “high impact” industries, such as aviation and oil, falls short of what investors and users of financial statements actually want. The report also found that developed countries and Third World nations need to work more closely together in order to better cooperate. In addition to these areas for improvement, the report included an analysis of mandatory and voluntary disclosure schemes that are currently being operated and showcase that the imperative for disclosure by businesses is growing each year.

The report provides specific recommendations of the ACCA and GRI on what specific items companies should include in their climate disclosures. These items include:
--Policy – companies policies should be detailed in their annual sustainability reporting, including their stance on climate change and any commitment to binding targets.
--Governance and strategy – disclosure of how policy is governed and managed within the organization, and how climate change issues and risks are incorporated into the core business strategy.
--Risk – companies should demonstrate a clear process for addressing business risks associated with climate change (i.e. physical, regulatory, financial and reputational risks).
--Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – the report should include trend data for emissions, as well as progress against prior targets.
--Mitigation and Adaptation – how the organization is attempting to mitigate its climate change impacts and emissions and how it intends to adapt to risks posed should be detailed.
--Credibility – to ensure credibility the report should shed light on efforts to achieve independent verification/assurance of GHG emissions data and claims.

Pursuant to providing recommendations for the model climate disclosure, the ACCA/GRI report delves into an examination of climate change reporting in general as well as an analysis limited to emerging markets. Initially the report discusses the necessity for carbon accounting and reporting by summarizing the background of scientific research into climate change (including the International Panel on Climate Change) and international efforts to address carbon emissions (specifically, the establishment of UN organizations and various meetings and protocols such as the Kyoto protocol).

These efforts have provided the starting point for a framework for national GHG inventories. It is for this reason, carbon accounting (which includes the ability to identify, establish and manage inventories, set emissions objectives and targets, monitoring and analyzing performance and reporting on and assuring performance) becomes necessary.

The report then examines some of the current initiatives in place, looking first at the most prominent standards and guidelines that address the technical requirements of accounting and reporting (be they international or local; required or voluntary), and then at initiatives designed to compel or require accounting, reporting and assurance. Some of the more prominent standards that are detailed are;
-- the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
--the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) – World Resources Institute GHG Protocol
--International Standards Organization (ISO) 14064 series – Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Verification
--The Global Resources Institute G3 Indicators Flexible Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism) as defined by the Kyoto Protocol

In addition to providing further detail and background on these various initiatives, the report puts forth the caveat that as long as the accounting, reporting and verifying of GHG data remains voluntary, there will be little impetus to standardize.

The report authors then list the 11 most prevalent existing reporting and assurance schemes available, including the Carbon Disclosure Project, the European Union Emissions Trading System, the Climate Registry and the Chicago Climate Exchange to name a few. A table listing the schemes and general criteria they can be compared against is provided along with corresponding explanations of each system for interested parties. After providing this background, this section of the report concludes by describing the changing landscape of carbon disclosure and going over various efforts to develop or improve carbon accounting and reporting schemes that are in the works around the world. Some examples of these up and coming schemes include:
--the Climate Disclosure Standards Board – seeking to develop a single framework for compiling climate change related disclosures.
--ISO 14067 – for the assessment of products’ carbon footprints.
--The Western Climate Initiative – a joint effort by seven US states and four Canadian provinces begun in February 2007 to develop a regional GHG cap and trade program.

Analysis of Carbon Disclosure Among Developed Nations The second main section of the report focuses on trends in carbon reporting among high-impact sectors from 2003 – 2008 and delves into the methodology used. To obtain an adequate sample selection, the study assessed the standard of carbon reporting of a sample of 36 companies, across 15 sectors.

The sample was limited to companies headquartered in developed nations. Those companies whose reports were selected met the requirements of having published a sustainability report annually from 2003 to 2008, belonging to a high-impact sector (as defined by FTSE4Good) and being among the largest companies in the world by market capitalization. The companies were assessed along 45 criteria, grouped into 6 main groups, and assigned a score of 0 or 1 for each criteria. These scores were added up for each year to get an overall percentage score. The report provides overall results as well as results for each criteria grouping. From an overall perspective, the following findings were noted:
--56% was the top score achieved by any company
--The average score in 2008 was 28%
--28 of the 36 companies sampled scored less than 40%

Although the scores may appear to be less than desired, there has been an overall trend of improved reporting from year to year.

The specific six groupings for the criteria upon which each company was evaluated and summary statements for each set of results are provided below:
--Policy – the assessment of this group was based on disclosures of organizational climate change policy, covering operations, products and the company’s “position” on binding climate change targets and the scientific consensus.
--Performance for this group improved from an average of 20% across all companies in 2003 to 43% in 2008.
--Governance and Strategy – This criteria group is concerned with how companies disclose information on how climate change is managed internally, through board level ownership, committees and support from the CEO. It also covers whether the organization has explained how climate change is aligned and integrated with core business strategy. Performance for this criteria group has improved between 2003 and 2008, with average scores for all companies ranging from 12% to 29%.
--
--Risk – this criteria group is concerned with disclosures on climate change risk identification and management, spanning regulatory requirements, financial risks, reputational issues and physical risks. Performance of all companies assessed against the ‘Risk’ criteria group has improved from an average of just 9% in 2003 to 18% in 2008, indicating that this was a challenging area for companies to report on.
--GHG emissions – assessment of this criteria group is split into two parts: performance and targets. Disclosure requirements for assessment here included gross and intensity-based GHG emissions data spanning Scopes 1, 2 and 3 (as defined by the WBCSD GHG Protocol) and long-term and short-term targets for performance improvements. The average performance of all companies assessed against the ‘GHG emissions’ criteria group has increased from 21% in 2003 to 33% in 2008 – so there is a better ‘basic’ performance across the companies in 2003 but the extent of improvement is not as marked. This indicates that most companies are reporting their GHG emissions but in varying degrees of detail. Setting both absolute and intensity-based targets for climate change was also a rarity among the companies assessed.
--Mitigation and adaptation – the criteria group was concerned with disclosures on companies’ climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, as well as their engagement with supply chains to encourage performance improvements downstream. The average performance of all companies assessed against the ‘Mitigation and adaptation’ criteria group has increased from 39% in 2003 to 53% in 2008, so to some extent this was the criteria group against which they performed best overall. This indicates that most companies are reporting on their mitigation and adaptation activities (primarily mitigation). Many companies do not clearly distinguish between mitigation (taking actions to reduce GHG emissions and to enhance sinks aimed at reducing the extent of global warming) and adaptation (taking action to adapt to the effects and minimize the risks of global warming).
--Credibility – this criteria group was concerned with whether companies’ climate change disclosures were a credible source of information, with independent assurance of GHG-emissions data, use of emissions guidance such as the ISO Standard and GHG protocol, and the GRI Guidelines. The average performance of all companies assessed against the ‘Credibility’ criteria group has increased from 31% in 2003 to 36% in 2008, indicating that companies are (slowly) moving towards disclosing more credible information for stakeholders.

Analysis of Carbon Disclosure Among Developing Nations The next main section of the “High Impact Sectors” report provides the results of the study when examining the climate change reporting of developing countries rather than developed ones. This portion of the study was conducted with the same methodology as that detailed in the prior section, with the exception that the sample selection was limited to companies headquartered in the BRIC + SA bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), as these countries are expected to account for 75% of GHG emissions over the next 25 years.

Of the 73 companies that met the selection criteria, only 32 issued a report covering sustainability related issues. Only reports from 2007 on were utilized in assessing each company against the established criteria. General results, and results that reflect trends by sector, trends per country and results per criteria are provided. The section concludes with overall conclusions. For the final section of the report, various experts provide their perspectives on the results of the study. Read the original article at the GreenEconomyPost.com

By Bruce Haring

CleanTechies sits down with John Viera, director of sustainable business strategies for Ford Motor Company, for three questions.

CleanTechies: What are your day to day duties and the big picture of your job?

John Viera: Basically, my responsibilities are two-fold. My organization is responsible for our sustainability strategies and also responsible for environmental policy for the company. So, when you think about those two pockets – the sustainability strategy, you can think about it in a couple of different buckets. Everything we do from a sustainability strategy standpoint has to have economic goodness to it. I say that because when we talk about doing things that are environmentally friendly and whatnot, we say that it does need to have a good business case. We’re not the philanthropic arm of Ford. There is a philanthropic arm. It’s called the Ford Fund. And what we do is we set up strategies that make business sense.

We’re not the philanthropic arm of Ford. We set up strategies that make business sense.

The two buckets in sustainability are the environmental bucket and the social bucket. The environmental bucket is probably the one that gets most of the attention when we talk about, “Is Ford green? And what are the green actions?” But we actually do a lot of work as well on the social side. And that gets into things like human rights and working conditions in our plants, in our suppliers’ plants. What kind of codes do we have that require our facilities and our suppliers facilities to insure that the workers have the right temperature, working the right hours, we’re not using child labor, those types of things.

But on the environmental side, and probably where I spend most of my time, it’s really two-fold. What are we doing with our products in terms of environmental friendliness and what are we doing with our facilities, our manufacturing plants. And when we talk about our products, probably the two areas are fuel economy, because as you improve fuel economy, you reduce the amount of CO2 you’re emitting. That’s the biggest area that we focus on because it has the biggest impact on the environment. But we also work on our sustainable materials strategy. First of all, we want our vehicles to be completely recyclable. You’re probably familiar with the fact that vehicles are highly recyclable. As a matter of fact, it is the number one large consumer product when it comes to recycling. About 95% of our vehicle can be recycled. About 85% of all vehicles actually do get recycled. Which is a high percentage compared to, like, 50% for newspapers and 30% for pop bottles. Obviously we want to drive that to 100%. But the other piece associated with sustainable materials is how do we drive toward more toward what we call renewable or reusable materials in our products. An example would be moving from petroleum-based plastics to more plant-based plastics or materials. A good example is the foam that we have in our vehicle seats. It used to be made from petroleum-based products. We are now moving to soy-based foam seats.

We look at our facilities to make them more sustainable. It also includes strategies to eliminate material going to landfill. And then another area is water use.

And then from a manufacturing standpoint, we also look at what are we doing with our facilities to make them more sustainable. And that goes anywhere from improving the energy efficiency of all of our facilities, because then we’re using less electricity, to minimizing the amount of emissions outside of CO2 emissions. It also includes strategies to eliminate material going to landfill. And then another area is water use. When we think about that next environmental element that we need to focus on more so than we’ve done so far, and that’s what are we doing in terms of water and reducing the amount we’re using. We think that’s going to be equally as important as the focus that we’ve all had on CO2 reductions.

CleanTechies: Does Ford have a position on climate change?

John Viera: Our position on climate change is that we absolutely acknowledge the science of climate change. We came out with a report in 2005 that said we believe climate change is real and that we need to do our part from a Ford Motor Co. and automaker standpoint to address the issue. We continue to make that statement publicly and basically we have set off what we called our product CO2 sustainability strategy around a CO2 reduction pass that basically allows us to do our share in terms of contributing to climate stabilization. So we’ve committed to a 30% reduction in CO2 from our vehicles by 2020 from the 2006 baseline point. So we’re basically putting ourselves on a 450 ppm glide path type of curse.

CleanTechies: Can you have influence on other corporations with your strategies?

John Viera: We are actually supportive of some of the cap and trade legislation. So when we talk about policy, we are all for what we call an economy-wide cap and trade legislation where we’re basically saying we do need to concentrate on reducing CO2 in all sectors and we’re going to do our part in our sector. So kind of the proof in the pudding is – we feel that before we can go out and strongly say hey, we’re very supportive of a cap and trade type of approach, are we really living with our strategy, doing our share in terms of contributing to that cap and trade approach? And we are doing that with our strategy. So that’s why we go out and support that type of position.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechies

By Timothy B. Hurst

It is only a matter of time before Coca-Cola products in North America will be packaged in plant-based containers. The mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) derived from sugarcane and molasses have already started popping up in Europe and Coca-Cola officials say the new PlantBottle will be ready for a North American debut at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. And if Coca-Cola is able to carry out its strategic vision of finding other sources of waste-plant material to make MEG from, it may not be long before most Coke products are packaged entirely in 100% plant-based, recyclable bottles.

“Today, we are taking a major step along our sustainable packaging journey as The Coca-Cola Company becomes the first-to-market with a recyclable PET plastic bottle made partially from plants,” said said Muhtar Kent, Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company, in a release.

Coca-Cola says the new packaging helps reduce the company’s dependence on petroleum and reduce its carbon footprint, siting preliminary research that indicates a lifecycle carbon advantage for the plant-based bottling product over traditional petroleum-based bottles. The company’s long-term vision is to “grow the business, not the carbon,” said Cees van Dongan of Coke’s global Environment, Health & Safety Council at a European bioplastics conference, eventually reaching a net balance of zero waste generated by the company’s packaging. Coke says it will continue to monitor and collect lifecycle data about the production of its PlantBottle and post findings when they become available. Coke bottles from sugarcane today and from wood chips tomorrow.

PlantBottle packaging is currently made through a process that turns sugar cane and molasses, a by-product of sugar production, into a key component for PET plastic. Coke says the sugar cane waste being used for its bottle production comes from predominantly rain-fed crops that were processed into ethanol, not refined sugar and that they are working with the World Wildlife Fund to promote sustainable sugarcane production in Brazil and elsewhere.

The PlantBottle packaging in the North American market will consist of up to 30% plant materials from sugarcane production in Brazil. The remainder of the material will be traditional PET plastic, some proportion of which will likely be post-consumer content. But regional variations in PET consistency cause the percentage of plant material in the bottles to vary from one country to the next.

For example, Denmark uses recycled content in its PlantBottle packaging. The combined plant-based and recycled content makes up 65 percent of the material, with 50 percent coming from recycled material and 15 percent from plant-based material. But the proportion of PET in bottles may eventually be moot as the company’s long term goal is to use non-food, plant-based waste, such as wood chips or wheat stalks, to produce recyclable PET plastic bottles. The current supply stock also relies on byproducts from the Brazilian ethanol industry. Coca-Cola sees the sugarcane as adequate for the time being, but not part of a long term viable strategy.

Said Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent of the future of bottling: “Our vision is to continue innovating to achieve a bottle that is made with 100 percent plant-waste material while remaining completely recyclable.”

And whether you drink Coke or Dasani water in a bottle is not the point. The point is that huge corporations like Coca-Cola that move millions of pounds of product can make or break entire industries based on their material sourcing. And we may be witnessing a huge shift in the bottling industry that, on its face, appears to be a good thing.

Reprinted with permission from EarthandIndustry.com

By Chris Tobias

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a critical issue across Asia. From local companies to multi-national conglomerates, how successfully business interacts with its environs and community is of supreme importance.

The recent CSR-Asia Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia gave some worthwhile perspectives in a region home to roughly 60% of the world’s population. But how many of the case studies demonstrated a genuine portrayal of companies doing good work, and how much was at best blatant greenwash? What countries, industries, and companies are emerging as leaders? What are they key issues facing the region?

Aviation Industry’s Climate Woes

One of the bright spots included a refreshingly honest account from Cathay Pacific’s Mark Watson. Working in the area of environmental management and CSR, Watson detailed the airline’s efforts in many areas like improving fuel efficiency (23% improvement over the last decade), investigation of biofuels, and redesigning their jet fleet with suppliers like Boeing and Rolls Royce.

Cathay is also proactively working with industry groups like IATA to set clear carbon related policies for the aviation industry leading up to Copenhagen’s climate negotiations later this year. Watson was frank in his admission that, “Airlines do not have the abatement options of other industries. There is no silver bullet for aviation emissions.”

While aviation emissions are around 2-3% of the global total, due to the altitude at which they occur, they pose a disproportionate effect on the climate as they affect the complex chemistry of Earth’s upper atmosphere. Watson outlined Cathay’s attempts make a clear, level playing field for airlines to take responsibility for their carbon emissions, and noted that the upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year would be difficult.

Developing Nations, Climate Negotiations, and CDM

“Countries like Brazil, India, and China are against the equal treatment of emissions across countries and industries worldwide,” Watson said. “Instead, they push for the common but differentiated responsibility treatment.” Within United Nations negotiations, this essentially means that so-called developing nations get different treatment and are not liable in many of the same ways as developed nations. This is a likely sticking point for many countries coming to a cohesive agreement, and with carbon atmospheric levels already over 380ppm, timing is critical to correct the problem.

Countries taking this position on emissions has knock on effects for their national industries, such as aviation. Some countries such as Singapore are crafty in how they straddle both sides of the fence: for business and investment, they position themselves as developed nations; on climate and carbon issues, they wish to be seen as developing countries to avoid major emissions liability.

Recently, Singapore has been especially vocal on avoiding emissions cuts , rather than taking a critical leadership role in Southeast Asia— to much disapproval from more informed citizens. [Side note: with such national tactics afoot, it’s not surprising that Singaporean companies rank low on CSR-Asia’s Sustainability Rating, near the bottom of the list with countries like Pakistan.]

While Cathay Pacific seemed to be toe-to-toe with other aviation leaders like Air New Zealand and Continental, Watson noted that the bulk of the industry were laggards on many climate and environmental issues. “Because aviation survives on very low margins, any company not taking the cost of carbon emissions, fuel costs, and efficiency into serious account faces massive risk,” he said. On the fuel and climate change fronts, the aviation industry seems set for a continued shakeout of poorly managed companies in the years ahead.

The good news is, on the subject of carbon trading and CDM projects [clean development mechanism], Business Development Manager Richard Mao from First Climate shared some promising information. “According to recent research, carbon markets are rapidly developing. The 2009 volume is expected to double that of 2008, and countries with the greatest number of CDM projects are topped by developing nations like China, India, and Malaysia,” he said. So while at one level, big developing nations might be swatting off responsibility, on the ground level there is a lot going on to reduce emissions.

Regardless of whatever happens in Copenhagen climate negotiations, Mao noted that the EU was prepared to take a leadership role, and aim for 20% reduction emissions targets if no international agreement took shape. If other countries worldwide got on board with sweeping cuts, the EU was going to commit to a 30% reduction against their 1990 emissions levels.

The Thrust for Transparency and Better CSR Policy in Asia

The Malaysian Bursa Stock Exchange is trying to foster better CSR in Malaysia. In terms of policy and governance issues, Bursa is taking a lead by requiring that all listed companies have at least a basic CSR policy.

While specific criteria around what is contained in the policy has not yet been established, CEO Yusli Mohamed Yosef has publicly stated that companies need to include CSR criteria in their operations as “the new business as usual.”

Coupled with the Malaysian government’s recent announcement of a 100 million Ringgit fund to support CSR development in companies across the country, these are promising developments in Southeast Asia, and indeed the larger global context.

Summing up the state-of-play, CSR-Asia Chairman Richard Welford indicated that one year ago as the financial crisis was in full effect, he was concerned for the future of CSR in Asia.

However, he stated “That due to the financial meltdown, CSR has been pushed to the forefront as a part of the serious debate and discussion around the irresponsibility of business.” He highlighted that trust, governance, transparency, accountability, communication, and disclosure will need the utmost attention going forward to rebuild public trust in business. It is likely CSR will become more deeply imbedded in the business landscape as a result.

Has the Financial Industry Learned Anything?

Speaking of the financial meltdown, while the recent crisis has meant some advancement for CSR, has the attitude of financial institutions actually changed? Are any of the underlying attitudes and causes for the crisis being addressed? If the rhetoric from Chief Risk Credit Officer Paul Norton at HSBC is any indication, there is still a lot to be desired.

While glossy overview was given on HSBC’s environmental and social policy, very little emerged when boiled down to the details. Citing client confidentiality, Mr. Norton declined to answer several questions around HSBC’s dealings with several forestry related projects and remained vague overall in terms of how policy was actually executed.

From the point of view of external scrutiny, here wouldn’t be much to examine; again the issue of transparency and open disclosure remains elusive. This was in spite of him talking at length about the strength of their policies towards responsible forestry. While policy might put HSBC ahead of some other banks on irresponsible lending practices, the exercise came across more as a slick PR exercise than CSR initiative.

What was also concerning about his talk was an air of overconfidence, the candor of banking business as usual, the same pre-crisis rhetoric. Interestingly, a lunchtime keynote speech by Irene Dorner, Deputy Chairman and CEO of HSBC Malaysia maintained the same self-assured, all knowing tenor.

With the banking industry having gone through the throes of major crisis, one might expect something more humble and transparent. As with the Wilmar case, perhaps HSBC can be given some points for effort, but the proof is in the pudding.

In many ways, these case studies reveal the complex nature of the global issues facing us as a human race. Most of these examples demonstrate the need to look at issues in terms of larger context, not quick fix solutions or short-term profit motives. If we are going to get anywhere on issues like climate change, we will need to adopt this sort of thinking and design in all of our solutions. CSR or no CSR, there is literally a world of work left to do.

Chris Tobias is Celsias Editor-at-Large and Lead Strategist at Forward

Reprinted with permission from Celsias.com

Amidst the big name corporations from around the world that attended this week’s BSR conference in San Francisco, there were also two little names. Pereira and O’Dell. PJ Pereira and Andrew O’Dell are the founders of this hot advertising agency with clients as varied as Lego, Pop Chips and Phoenix University. Matter Network sat down with Andrew, PJ and Director of Business Development Colin Spooner to find out what these Mad Men are doing at a sustainability conference.

Matter Network: So, why is an advertising agency at this show?

Andrew O’Dell: OK, OK, first of all there are a lot of our clients that are interested in this topic and I think that fundamentally advertising agencies are about big ideas and we are aware that many of the new big ideas are about this world and sustainability, and we want to become a source of information about it for our clients.

Colin Spooner: Whether it is Pereira & O’Dell as an advertising agency or reaching out to the community with our Barrel Houseventure, we are always looking for original content and we have to be and want to be aware of what is cool and relevant and important. So for our business, in some sense it is not as simple as it used to be and we have to think about everything: our footprint, and our client’s footprint and it is our responsibility for this world.

AO: It is also important because when we talk to these companies that are serious about this thing and they look at us, they may not know where we fit in. Unfortunately, we rarely hear about our type of business ever doing anything that gives back to the community; we are the “talk talk talk” and we wanted to do something that was unique and give back and get more. PJ and I want everybody to know what those companies do and we can do that. We are fortunate that we can lead that effort into our community, maybe get involved as more than just the traditional agency.

MN: So, trick question. What is the definition of “sustainability” to you?

AO: We look at it in terms of what we do and our clients, so we have had conversations about that definition, and that word was batted about and what we ask ourselves is what does this mean to individuals and people? To me and PJ what it means is what are you willing to put in? At that level it becomes easier to think about this and then it becomes more than a word like sustainability and becomes a conversation about what you put in and what you take out.

PJ Pereira: Sustainability is one of those things that we do with these events at the Barrel House and we throw these amazing events with 300 people and have displays and information for people. And we have to explain and we have to explain, this is not a crazy dot-com kind of event, this is the opposite of that and we have our space and we invite our clients to come and raise money for a charity that they like and respect and this is really about finding ways that you can help.

MN: Marketing is about increasing consumption and creating “addition,” while most of the conversation here at BSR has been about “subtraction.” How do you resolve that?

PJ: We have a unique ability to make the world a better place by doing what we are doing and help companies, help them to build their images through doing good and realizing that this is not about quick change; sometimes it takes a while. Some of the work we do with our clients is about moving them to a more meaningful way to be a better citizen or corporation to society and being better for themselves

AO: Take for example Pop Chips. Here is a company that is growing and they are looking at their packaging like most other chip companies, but for their size that impact is not great. However the small thing they have done is with their sampling programs out in the market. Instead of using gas powered vehicles they get an electric vehicle, and that small piece can at least start to install some ethos into that company that says at least we are trying. And sometimes that is what is most important: figuring out that first step.

MN: You have said that sometimes sustainability takes time, but isn’t advertising about creating that big “game changing” move?

AO: With advertising and what we are doing here, they don’t have to be contradictory. For instance we would flip that on its head and say that BSR had a great story to tell, but is it really reaching the people it needs to reach to make it bigger and tell the stories that don’t frighten people or try to scare people into action? Here in San Francisco or on the coasts people are getting the message, but now how do we bring that message and bring it to everyone else? An advertising agency can be the best assistance or the best vehicle to carry that message.

CS: At the end we are storytellers and we are reflection of what is going on in pop culture, and what is going on is a sustaining movement. But to build on Andy, I think that we are perfectly positioned to advance that story. There is that stigma that we are bad guys or “Mad Men,” but these are good stories that need to be told.

MN: Do you as an agency feel a responsibility to bring up this discussion with your clients?

PJ: Most of the time we find that they have already been talking about this and our goal is to help them tell that story to a consumer. Our clients are already involved in education; they are exploring organic materials, and creating seed farms that help small schools. So there are these things happening already and there is that energy already there and we need to bring that energy to the brand in a way that is going to be authentic and real and reflect what they are doing. And never fake it.

By Gina-Marie Cheeseman

Forbes magazine recently picked ExxonMobil Corp as its “Green Company of the Year.” Forbes praised Exxon for putting “$600 million into algae farms that would turn sunlight into automotive fuel,” and for the company’s increased drilling for natural gas. Exxon has almost completed a $30 billion project to “develop the world’s biggest natural gas field” in Qatar. When completed, the project in Qatar will make Exxon the world’s biggest producer of natural gas by a company that is not government controlled.

Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and natural gas company, pled guilty in a Denver federal court to killing migratory birds in five states. Exxon agreed to pay $600,000, $400,000 in fines and $200,000 in community service payments, and has already spent over $2.5 million to create a plan to prevent bird deaths at its facilities. Most of the birds died from exposure to hydrocarbons) in uncovered natural gas well reserve pits and waste water storage facilities.

Exxon is still funding lobby groups that question climate change, according to an analysis by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics. The analysis cited Exxon’s 2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments. The lobby groups that Exxon funded in 2008 include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which received $75,000, and the Heritage Foundation, which received $50,000.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director for Grantham, said NCPA and Heritage Foundation published “misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.” Ward added, “ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups. The reality is that they are still doing it. If the world’s largest oil company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it, and not tell people it has stopped.”

On its website, the NCPA said of climate change:

“NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth’s current warming trend is [sic] still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause.”

The Heritage Foundation contains a April 2009 paper on its website that states: “The scientific consensus behind global warming, especially the seriousness of the impacts, is anything but strong.”

An Exxon spokesperson said, “Only ExxonMobil speaks for ExxonMobil and our position on climate change is clear. We have the same concerns as people everywhere, and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action.”

Exxon said in its 2008 corporate citizenship report it would cut funding several groups that “divert attention” from finding sources of clean energy.

Reprinted with permission from Triple Pundit

Among many reasons not to flush medicines down the drain or throw them out with the trash is to prevent the chemicals from decomposing in soil and water supplies.

Chemicals are passed on to wildlife and humans consuming that water, and the chemicals may destroy important bacteria in soils and water that actually help purify those resources. To date, wastewater treatment systems are not setup to remove those contaminants, and that does not consider the runoff leaking directly into bodies of water or consumed by wildlife.

In an effort to halt flushing and tossing, the National Association of Counties has adopted a resolution the "Support of a Safe, Convenient Medicine Return Program" that places at least some of the responsibility of proper medicine disposal on the vendors supplying medicine to consumers. The Association is identifying non-governmental funds available to locate a pharmaceutical manufacturer who can collect medicine for proper disposal.

Similar functioning efforts, known as take back programs, are working throughout communities in America and Canada. In an era when nearly everyone is taking some sort of medication, popular prescriptions including anti-depressants, cholesterol controllers, and oral contraceptives, statistics are showing frightening rates of improper disposal. According to the investigative work conducted in informing the policy's reviewers and decision makers, medicine metabolites are found in the drinking supplies of "24 major metropolitan areas affecting 41 million Americans."

The Association has the right idea; we are all responsible -- vendors and consumers -- for keeping the soil and water clean. An even better idea is researching for funding sources outside of government funding, partly because the funding just does not exist in this economy, and partly because calling upon vendors to close the loop at the end of a product's life is only a responsible solution to a problem they are in part contributing to via a lack of education to consumers who are unaware of the dangers of medicines in soil and water supplies. Product Policy Institute's Executive Director, Dr. Bill Sheehan offered the following statement, "The cost of this program in 2008 was a mere $315,000, which was shared by pharmaceutical companies."

Anyone familiar with life cycle analyses looks to empower the manufacturers and users of a product, from harvesting the raw materials through the multiple assembly partners and on to the end user, to take responsibility for the harm that product may cause to the environment. Mandating that more companies take part in the full life cycle of a product, particularly polluting products like medicines, is the next step in the green movement. "Like Europe and Canada, the U.S. can develop programs to cover the costs of collecting, transporting and disposing of these medicines. It's imperative we do so." Well said Sheehan.