Corporate Responsibility - Matter Network - Clean Technology, Green News and Sustainable Business News

They're Hiring! CSR Jobs Grow by 33 Percent

SustainableBusiness — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:16:00 -0800

The posting of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) jobs increased 33% in 4Q09.

That follows a rather dismal year, when postings fell 68% from 3Q08 to 3Q09, according to the CSR Jobs report released by Sustainability Recruiting. The worst of the decline (61%) occurred between 3Q and 4Q of 2008, mirroring the drop in the stock market. CSR job listings declined even further through 1Q09 before leveling off through most of the year at a low point not seen since mid-2006.

The 4Q09 up-tick is promising, although it remains to be seen whether it will continue in 2010.

Among the most notable findings in the report is the increase in senior-level corporate positions--those with VP and Director titles. Before 2006, none of the job postings had a title of VP or above.

Dave Stangis, Vice President of CSR and Sustainability at Campbell's Soup commented: "The emergence of the VP of CSR and VP of Sustainability titles seems proof of the growing strategic business position of CSR."

Ellen Weinreb, CEO of Sustainability Recruiting, said: "A number of factors are involved. Most notable is the increased value being placed on CSR as a component of corporate strategy. This elevates the importance of positions performing this role.

Katie Kross, author of A Resource Guide for MBA Careers in Sustainability, notes: "More and more employers are broadening the definition of CSR to include not only corporate citizenship, but also a focus on energy and environmental management issues. I also see employers posting job openings in traditional roles like operations and marketing that include some CSR responsibilities."

According to Weinreb, there is enormous demand for CSR jobs from jobseekers. The catch-22 is that employers require candidates for these positions to have previous experience.

Reprinted with permission from SustainableBusiness.com

Green Marketing Best Practices Shared by Executives

Green Economy Post — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:45:00 -0800

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

Editorial: The Emergence of the Triple Bottom Line

SustainableBusiness.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:46:00 -0800

Rodger Hill, Head of Financial Management Advisory at global advisory firm KPMG, wrote the following editorial concering the emergence of triple-bottom-line reporting in the post-recession economy:

Once the credit crisis is firmly consigned to corporate history, we will likely reflect on just how dramatically it changed the corporate landscape. Not only will it have sent some mighty business names to the wall, it will also have been responsible for fundamentally changing the way the business world operates.

One such example may be in the way that corporate value is determined; will financial measures still be used in isolation as the measure of business value? This approach will soon be challenged.

The days of purely measuring business performance by financial result may well be numbered. In its place, I believe that discerning investors will look for something broader to measure an entity's real contribution and performance.

That something could be in the shape of the "triple bottom line"; an amalgam of financial results and an assessment of the social and environmental impacts of a business. Or, put another way: People, Planet and Profits.

If that sounds like something out of a pre credit crisis Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) manual, that's because the concept of the triple bottom line has been around for some time and, yes, it has echoes of the CSR debate from the previous decade. CSR however was more an internally focused view; something for employees to feel part of and probably made up just a couple of paragraphs in the annual report. It's unlikely that investors and lenders were ever making decisions based on a company's CSR initiatives.

Although mentions of the triple bottom line in the professional press have grown substantially since it was first coined in 19941, any noticeable change in how businesses were measured had been slow before the credit crisis. However, the crisis has been a catalyst, acting as an accelerant to the hopes of broader measures of performance being taken seriously by the business community.

I believe that the time when it is seen as a true measure of a company's value may be closer than many might think. I think we will now see investors pushing - ever more aggressively - for companies to provide fuller information to illustrate the value they have delivered, and the sustainability of growth.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the direction this takes us in, you do then have to ask the question of just how many businesses are in a position to report on such non-financial performance aspects. Bearing in mind that recent research has highlighted businesses' and their finance functions' shortcomings when it came to dealing with the financial result alone (and not forgetting that they've just endured two years of being battered by recession-busting cost reduction initiatives), it's hard to imagine how many could easily transition into this new mindset.

If the credit crisis taught us only one thing, it would be that traditional measures of growth alone are now inadequate as a measure of value. If similar attention had been given to the growth in corporate debt for example, you could argue that the whole crisis could have been avoided.

The argument can be extended to a macro economic level and the apparent obsession with GDP growth. Advocates of the triple bottom line would question the true worth of rising GDP if it is accompanied by unsustainable levels of debt and falling levels of education and health. These social impacts for example are in the very communities which house those corporations that are driving GDP growth.

At an industry level, the same advocates would tell us there is little point of lauding favourable growth results in the fishing industry for example, if it comes at the unsustainable expense of depleted global fish stocks. Commercial populations of some fish in the North Atlantic have fallen by 95% in the last decade; so a once great industry may be on the verge of becoming unsustainable. A simplistic example perhaps - but it makes the point that pure growth and numbers alone can mask much greater issues with regard to the impacts of this growth.

Following this line of argument can quickly transport you into what is a very complex, academic argument about true indicators of value. However, the point here is that the crisis was a wake-up call, highlighting just how intertwined the fortunes of businesses, communities, resources and the man on the street have become. The crisis made investors and stakeholders far more aware of this inter-dependence than ever before; hence the growing desire to look deeper into a company's performance and beyond the numbers.

Now, the good news in all this is that for those businesses that can grasp this nettle and somehow come to terms with supplying relevant multi-dimensional information to investors, I believe that a share price premium beckons. With capital now in less plentiful supply, investors and lenders may start to make decisions in a more discerning manner. The fall-out from the banking crisis has left a lot of stakeholders associated with investments that have not only lost money but have been shown to have had questionable social value. The painful lessons of recent times will live long in investors' memories. The triple bottom line measure of value may just prove to be their way of ensuring that mistakes are not repeated.

The whys are wherefores of the triple bottom line thinking could occupy a typical Board for days. However, if you work on the assumption that the concept will soon enter mainstream corporate thinking, then there are some pretty searching questions which need to be asked of businesses' and finance functions' capabilities to deliver the right information at the right time to information hungry stakeholders. Could they identify the social and environmental information which stakeholders will require? Will they be able to adequately communicate such information to all relevant parties?

Looking at this from the CFO's perspective, I believe that many finance functions still struggle to cope with the requirements of reporting the financial results alone, as many are still downloading and reworking numbers for both internal and external reporting needs. KPMG International research3 in late 2008 revealed that 80% of businesses felt that their finance function needed to up their game in terms of the levels of support and challenge they provided to the business. After over a year in which, most likely, little extra time or investment will have been given to the finance function, I doubt whether that 80% dissatisfaction rating will have dropped very far.

This triple bottom line debate is one which you're going to hear more and more about in the coming months and years. This will be a topic which will occupy governments' thinking, not just businesses'. Already, France has started down this route with President Sarkozy commissioning a study to look at ways of measuring economic growth and social progress which go way beyond a traditional measure of GDP growth. The question a business will have to ask is whether it, and more importantly its investor and stakeholder community, believes in the concept too. If it does, then it needs to start looking at its reporting capabilities as a matter of urgency - as these may soon be sorely tested.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

Home Depot Cuts Total Store Energy Use 16%

Sustainable Life Media — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:30:00 -0800

The world's largest home improvement retailer has announced a 2.6 billion kWh reduction in energy use in its domestic stores, which represents a 16% decrease since 2004. The company has set a goal to reduce energy use and domestic supply chain emissions 20% by the end of 2015.

At the start of 2004, The Home Depot's energy usage was 25 kWh per square foot. Through a series of operational programs including the upgrading of store HVAC systems, aligning of stocking hours more closely with store operating hours, use of CFL bulbs and a switch to T5 lighting, the Company's U.S. store energy usage now stands at 21 kWh per square foot. Since these reductions began in 2004, the Company has saved 2.6 billion kWh of energy, which is enough energy to power 203,000 homes for one year.

The company also announced their goal of reducing domestic supply chain emissions by 20% based on 2008 levels by 2015. The majority of these reductions will come from more efficient shipment routing, scheduling and consolidation of shipments to stores. The company is also in the midst of a supply chain transformation where they will eliminate their centralized distribution network and utilize mostly supplier-to-store shipments. They hope this will reduce their miles driven per year by 200 million, or about 25 million gallons of fuel.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Life Media

Executives Doubt They'll Make Money from Sustainability in the Short Term

Green Economy Post — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0800

by Nicholas Varilone

The Economist Intelligence Unit Survey finds mixed results in a poll of 202 executives in the financial and corporate social responsibility sectors. Many executives believe that sustainability practices will have a significant effect on their company's bottom line in the long run. However, short term results are less optimistic. Executives report the main roadblocks to sustainable practices as the lack of participation in reporting firms, as well as low cash incentives.
An recent Economist Intelligence Unit survey shows that only 24% of executives polled believe that in the short term (1-2 years) there is a strong correlation between the commitment of sustainable business practices and the financial performance of the firm. Less than half of companies even report their environmental and sustainability goals.

While sustainable business practices may not have a significant impact in the minds of executives in the short run, over the period of 5-10 years 69% of executives polled believe that there is a strong link between sustainability and profit. Companies worldwide are redeveloping their core business practices to meet sustainable goals in every aspect from supply chain to energy use policy.

This survey sponsored by Enel, of over 200 finance and corporate social responsibility executives explores the process by which executives are incorporating sustainability into their everyday business practices. The study defines sustainability as, "operating in a way that preserves the long-term productive capacity of the natural and social environments.

Results of the Survey

According to this Survey, 34% of executives polled said that their firm's immediate financial goals were of more importance than practicing sustainability. This is the cause of the major roadblock between corporate profit and sustainable business practices.

Executives believe that in the long run, integrating sustainable business practices into their firms, will allow them to operate more efficiently and increase profit margins. 87% of executives agree that sustainability will become more important over the next three years. Executives report including sustainability into every facet of business operations, including supply chain relationships (29%), improving energy efficiency (38%), educating employees on sustainability (32%), and engaging employees in sustainability related activities (30%). Fifty-four percent say sustainability efforts have been led by top management, which is the reason sustainable practices have been growing at such a high rate.

The survey produced five key findings:

The poor business climate is an obstacle to pursuing sustainability.

Thirty-four percent of respondents said their firms' immediate financial goals were a more pressing priority than sustainability. Not surprisingly, this represents the leading obstacle to embracing sustainability. Lack of consensus and clarity are also obstacles.

Executives increasingly see opportunity in sustainability. Eighty-seven percent agree that sustainability will become more important in the coming three years. Of these, 46% strongly agreed. While sustainability represents a risk for some, others see opportunity.

Companies are embedding sustainability into various corporate functions.

Executives report including sustainability into a variety of corporate functions, including supply chain relationships (29%), improving energy efficiency (38%), educating employees on sustainability (32%), and engaging employees in sustainability related activities (30%). Fifty-four percent say sustainability efforts have been led by top management, which may explain the wide reach of such initiatives.

But only around half of companies report their progress on sustainability.

Just 49% of respondents said they report progress in meeting their environmental sustainability goals. Slightly over half (53%) report their progress on meeting social sustainability goals. Nonetheless, executives say that stating goals and reporting progress towards those goals are essential in embracing sustainability.

Cash incentives are not widespread-but are growing.

Employee recognition programmes are the most widespread employee incentive, cited by 38% of respondents. Just 18% of firms link pay to sustainability indicators, but anecdotal evidence suggests this practice is growing among leading companies.

Reprinted with permission from Green Economy Post

Facing Threats from Solar and Wind Companies, Arizona Blinks

SustainableBusiness.com — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:00:00 -0800

Arizona state representative Debbie Lesko (R - Glendale) withdrew a bill she proposed that would have changed Arizona's Renewable Energy Standard (RES) to allow the inclusion of nuclear power and hydropower.

The bill essentially would have erased the mandate for 15% renewable power in the state, because the state's largest utility Arizona Public Service already gets 27% of its power from a nuclear plant.

The proposed bill created a huge stir last week, drawing strong protest from wind power and solar companies, including Suntech Power Holdings (Nasdaq: STP), which suggested it may back out of plans to build its first US fatory in the state.

The bill also would have stripped the state's regulatory board (Arizona Corporation Commission) of its authority to set renewable power mandates.

But the legislature quickly backpedaled from the proposal. House Speaker Kirk Adams issued a statement. "As a high-growth state, Arizona must have an energy plan to match our energy demand, now and in the future," he said. "Renewable energy, and solar in particular, must play a vital role."

Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who recently pulled Arizona out of the cap-and-trade plan being developed by the Western Climate Initiative--praise Lesko's decision to withdraw the bill.

"This sends a clear and united message to employers around the world: Arizona remains the premiere destination for solar industries," Brewer said in a statement.

In Other State News...

Drought-stricken farmers and cities across California were granted a measure of relief on Friday when federal and state officials said they expected to supply significantly more water this year than last.

Read the full Reuters story at the link below.

Website: planetark.org/wen/56915

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

81% of European CEOs Focus on Sustainability

Sustainable Life Media — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:00:00 -0800

A new pan-European research study called "Sustainovation" has revealed that 81% of European CEO's are combating shortages in raw materials such as oil and water through focusing their efforts on sustainability.

Conducted by management consultants brands & values, the 100-page emissions-free report presents comprehensive examples of companies creating industry-innovative solutions to environmental challenges. They identify four key trends in their business models:

- Environmental Technology Innovation - (Proctor & Gamble, Henkel) - How translating the environmental side of the sustainability agenda into new products and services can complement regulatory efforts and move beyond compliance.

- Bottom of Pyramid Innovation - (Deutsche Bank and Vodafone)- How innovations in technology, business models, and ways of thinking create profit and meet pressing social needs in underserved markets. They seek to alleviate poverty by increasing the purchasing power of customers at the bottom of the population pyramid.

- Cradle to Cradle Innovation - (Herman Miller) - How to change the linear flow of the cradle-to-grave paradigm into a closed-loop system with zero footprint. To create products that are 100% recyclable and can be broken down and circulated infinitely in industrial cycles.

- Catalytic Innovations - (betterplace.org) - How to combine successful social entrepreneurship by harnessing the power of the Internet.

Of the 1200 CEO's surveyed across every industry in 14 West European countries, 86% view ecological and social challenges as motivators of innovative products and business models. Further, 90% believe that global threats are a challenge for the long-term success of their companies.

However, most of these companies concentrate primarily on their own supply chain, procurement policies, and logistics, even though the majority of them are well aware of the effect sustainable consumerism has on their agenda. Further still, only half actually encourage the responsible lifestyle.

Martin Blumberg, managing partner of brands & values, reflects: "Up until now only a few companies have opened up new sales markets through sustainable innovation . . . but as we seem to be coming to the end of the financial crisis, the awareness of business opportunities brought by sustainable innovation is growing among the responsible parties."

With the price of raw materials high and tight budgets, companies are coming up with ever-efficient methods for improving their operational efficiencies. It makes financial sense, but helps the environment too.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Life Media

Enterprise Shifts North American Shuttle Fleet to Bio-Fuel

Sustainablog — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:03:00 -0800

by Tom Schueneman

Sustainablog has kept tabs through the years on traditional companies making serious efforts toward sustainability. Enterprise Holdings, encompassing Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Alamo, and National Car Rental, is one of those companies. From expansion of their hybrid rental fleet, to urban van pool programs, voluntary carbon offset programs for their customers, award-winning fleet management, or active support for biofuel research, Enterprise Holdings has consistently shown both the vision of creating a sustainable business, and the practical application to make the vision a reality.

Today we'll look at biofuels, highlighted by Enterprise's recent announcement of their plans to convert its entire North American fleet of airport shuttle buses across all three rental car brands to biofuel.

Last week I spoke with Lee Broughton, Enterprise Holding's directory of sustainability, about their plans. First let's look at the bullet points:

* The entire North American fleet of 600 buses are slated for conversion to biofuel

* The principal feedstock for the biofuel is soybean oil, but will also utilize other alternative fuels, such a algae, as the fuels become available. No corn ethanol will be used

* In 9 markets, where the infrastructure is already in place, Shuttle buses will immediately convert to B20 (20 percent biofuel blend). Those markets include Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Raleigh/Durham, San Antonio and San Diego

* The remaining fleet will convert to B5 by the spring of this year. By the end of 2011, half of the company's fleet will convert to B20

* Within 5 years, the entire fleet in 50 North American markets will run on B20 fuel.

* In the first year alone, the conversion will reduce petroleum consumption by approximately 420,000 gallons and curb CO2 emissions equivalent to retiring 40 buses from the Enterprise fleet

"This investment in biodiesel follows our commitment to our customers and our business to use our fleet to help grow the clean fuel market," says Broughton. "By embracing alternative fuels and engine technologies, they have a greater opportunity to become commercially viable. Biodiesel's benefits to the environment support our commitment to environmental stewardship, as well as our sustainable approach to managing our business for long-term success."

A commitment to research and renewable fuels

The conversion of shuttle buses to biofuel blends is only the latest step in Enterprise's evolving commitment to cleaner renewable fuels. In 2007 Enterprise created the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Institute for Renewable Fuels with a 25 million dollar gift from the Taylor family, founders of Enterprise Holdings. The Institute works in conjunction with the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, a premier research lab based in St. Louis, the Taylor's and Enterprise's home town.

Dr. Richard Sayre was named director of the Institute in 2008. Dr. Sayre, whom I interviewed shortly after his appointment, is one of the premier scientists in the U.S. studying cellulosic biofuels. "The combination of energy independence and our need to identify alternative sources for our fuels is the future," says Sayre. "I believe biofuels are bringing us a step closer to achieving these critical goals and Enterprise is enabling science to become a reality."

Easy access to a practical marketplace is key to his work. Sayre's research has a ready and willing "petrie dish," as Broughton characterizes the Enterprise fleet, eager to test new fuels and methods of production and distribution.

Walking the talk

I've talked with Broughton three times over the past couple of years about various aspects of their sustainability efforts. The overarching message each time is the commitment Enterprise Holdings has to sustainability. It is a commitment that has evolved over the years, not come from the latest "buzz"or fad - or simply a greenwash. It is a core fundamental value laid down when Jack Taylor offered his first rental car to the public. To be sure, back in 1957 Taylor wasn't thinking about sustainability in today's terms. Few people were. But Taylor's core values have grown along with the family-run business and have continually embraced the challenges of an ever-changing world and marketplace. And for a company like Enterprise, those challenges revolve around creating viable markets for a transition to new fuels, lower emissions, and sensible transportation options. The very essence of sustainability, for a company and a community.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainablog

Intel To Lead $3.5 Billion 'Invest in America Alliance'

SustainableBusiness.com — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:01:00 -0800

Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) is heading up a $3.5 billion initiative that should lead to additional venture capital investment in cleantech areas such as electric vehicle technology.

The Invest in America Alliance, which includes many leading venture capital firms and corporations, aims to support U.S.-based growth-oriented industries and increase jobs available this year for recent college graduates.

The Alliance is a two-pronged effort. The first includes a commitment from Intel Capital, Intel Corporation's global investment organization, and 24 leading venture capital firms to invest $3.5 billion in U.S.-based technology companies over the next 2 years. These investments, which include a new, $200 million Intel Capital Invest in America Technology Fund, will target key innovation and growth segments such as clean technology, information technology and biotechnology.

Joining Intel in this effort is Advanced Technology Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures, Bridgescale Partners, Canaan Partners, DCM, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Flywheel Ventures, Good Energies, Institutional Venture Partners, Investcorp Technology Partners, Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Menlo Ventures, Mohr Davidow Ventures, New Enterprise Associates, North Bridge Venture Partners, QuestMark Partners, Sevin Rosen Funds, Storm Ventures, Telesoft Partners, Updata Partners, U.S. Venture Partners, Venrock and Walden International.

Second, the Invest in America Alliance also includes commitments from 17 technology and other corporate leaders to increase their hiring of college graduates, some by as much as two times, to create the products and provide the services of tomorrow. Companies joining Intel in this pledge are Accenture (NYSE: ACN), Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq: ADBE), Autodesk (Nasdaq: ADSK), Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq: BRCM), CDW LLC., Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO), Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), eBay, Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY), EMC Corporation (NYSE: EMC), GE (NYSE: GE), Google, Inc.(Nasdaq: GOOG), HP (NYSE: HPQ), Liberty Mutual Group, Marvell Semiconductor Inc., Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT), and Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO).

Many of these companies have committed to doubling graduate hiring over 2009 levels. In total, this represents 10,500 jobs for graduates to be hired for a range of positions. While the new jobs will largely be for those with engineering and computer science backgrounds, positions available also include financial analysis, marketing, management consulting, sales and other business skills in the majority of states across America.

Other venture capital firms and corporations are expected to join the Invest in America Alliance with investment funds or hiring goals in the coming weeks and months.

Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini announced the initiative on Tuesday in a speech titled delivered at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

"Strong, enduring economies grow out of a culture of investment and a commitment to innovation," Otellini said. "We simply must have a clear, consistent strategy to promote innovation, investment and start-up companies. There are things business can do, and ought to do, independent of what government achieves."

Website: www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/InvestinAmerica

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

Business Leaders Opt to Measure and Report

The Green Economy — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:03:00 -0800

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

How the Office Can Finally Go Paperless

SustainableBusiness.com — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:20:00 -0800

Corporate treasury operations are awash in paper, and a new report by J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM) outlines how they can achieve a more sustainable, paperless future.

Migrating to electronic Treasury processes can have a measurable impact on a corporation's carbon footprint as large Treasury operations can easily generate 5.5 tons of paper each year--the equivalent of 143 trees and 106 tons of greenhouse gasses. Since J.P. Morgan Treasury Services' began its "Go Green" campaign in 2007 the company says it has helped Treasury clients eliminate more than 101 million paper documents and save three million pounds of paper annually.

The report, "Sustainable Treasury Management: It's Easier Than You Think," highlights a number of best practices to help Treasury departments move toward a "zero-return" environment, including the following:

* Reengineering Receivables. Many Treasury departments still spend time and money manually entering receivable and invoice information into their accounts receivable system to track payment status. Image capture and data capture in conjunction with web based data repositories provide faster and easier access to documentation and eliminate the cost of transporting paper from lockbox locations. Treasury staff can then use their bank's online channel to improve internal workflow, receive automated exception notices and make same-day exception decisions.

* Streamlining Disbursements. An online disbursement platform can significantly reduce the resources and hours required to initiate payments, research payment status and reconcile accounts. These platforms also reduce risk by providing safeguards against check fraud.

* Online Reports and Statements. Treasury departments are deluged with reports of all kinds. Bringing these reports online eliminates boxes of paper statements and the storage fees associated with them. With an electronic archive, Treasury staff can use the Search feature to locate specific transactions and other data.

* Document Security. Paper documents pose significant security and business continuity risks. A paperless environment turns them into electronic images that are stored in a central online repository that can restrict access to sensitive information. New workflow processes can be developed for creating, saving, filing and accessing documents that factor in security and disaster recovery requirements, as well as regulatory considerations.

A free copy of the report is available at the link below.

Website: www.jpmorgan.com/visit/gogreenwhitepaper

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

BP, ConocoPhillips Pull Out of Climate Action Partnership

SustainableBusiness.com — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:59:00 -0800

Oil and gas companies BP (NYSE: BP) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) announced Monday they will not renew their memberships in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).

Formed in 2007, USCAP is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that created a blueprint for the comprehensive climate and energy legislation they wanted the US Congress to pass.

Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips chairman and CEO, said the climate change bill passed by the House last summer "disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalized versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions."

The bill reportedly was based in part on USCAP's blueprint.

BP said it still supports the USCAP blueprint. which called for a cap-and-trade market, but it also said current legislation would penalize the petroleum industry.

Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) also withdrew from USCAP.

It's not exactly clear why these companies are pulling out now. If they signed on in the first place simply to improve their green reputations, it would make sense that they would remain members now that climate legislation appears to be dead in the water. But maybe it isn't.

Or maybe the companies did not fully support USCAP's blueprint to begin with, and now that the climate legislation house of cards is beginning to fall, they've decided to yank their card out as well.

Companies remaining in the organization include Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) and Shell Oil (NYSE: RDS-B). Environmental groups include Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Read additional coverage at the link below.

Website: planetark.org/enviro-news/item/56767

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

HP Sets Strict Policy on E-Waste Export

SustainableBusiness.com — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:18:00 -0800

HP (NYSE: HPQ) updated its policy on electronic waste last week, banning its export from developed countries, like the U.S., to any developing country.

The company said it is committed to responsibly disposing of all e-waste generated by HP's global operations and take-back programs.

Specifically HP will not export non-working electronic equipment or parts from developed to developing nations, unless they are deemed non-hazardous, according to definitions under the Basel Convention - an international treaty on toxic waste trade.

The Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which promotes responsible recycling and green design in the electronics industry, applauded the announcement.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business "This announcement shows that HP is an environmental leader in this industry," said Barbara Kyle, Electronics TakeBack Coalition National Coordinator. "Companies managing e-waste need strict programs in place to prevent pushing our problems on developing nations and to stem the stream of toxic waste. With this policy, HP is making a commitment to do their part to stop the global dumping of e-waste."

HP said e-waste processed by the company and its authorized vendors is tracked and documented throughout the entire chain of custody until final disposition. HP audits its recycling, refurbishment and processing vendors annually to ensure they conform to its vendor requirements for hardware reuse and recycling and supply chain social and environmental responsibility (SER) policies.

"The U.S. doesn't have laws that make it illegal to dump our e-waste on developing nations," said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network (BAN), a global watchdog group on toxic trade, that has produced films and reports exposing the global e-waste dumping problem. "HP should be commended for this new policy, which goes beyond U.S. laws."

An August 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office found that "a substantial amount ends up in countries such as China and India, where they are often handled and disposed of unsafely. These countries often lack the capacity to safely handle and dispose of used electronics if the units are not in reusable condition when received, and the countries' extremely low labor costs and the reported lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling commonplace."

Much of these exports are made labeled for reuse, supposedly to "bridge the digital divide." But a 2005 film and report by the Basel Action Network, Digital Dump: Exporting Reuse and Abuse to Africa, found that of the estimated 500 40-foot containers shipped to Lagos, Nigeria each month, as much as 75% of the imports are "junk" and are not economically repairable or marketable.

"It's important that HP is taking voluntary steps to make sure the e-waste they control isn't getting dumped on poor countries, but there will still be millions of pounds of e-waste exported by others each year, unless Congress takes action to stop it," said Barbara Kyle. "We urge Congress to pass legislation modeled on HP's policy, that ensures that we aren't exporting our e-waste problem to other countries."

Last year, Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) announced a similar standard, stating that it was the first major computer manufacturer to do so.

Website: www.electronicstakeback.com

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

Study Finds that Leading Companies Are Ignoring Water Risks

SustainableBusiness.com — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:32:00 -0800

Despite growing water-scarcity risks in many parts of the world, the vast majority of leading companies in water-intensive industries have weak management and disclosure of water-related risks and opportunities, according to a first-ever report issued today by the Ceres investor coalition, the financial services firm UBS and financial data provider Bloomberg.

The report evaluates and ranks water disclosure practices of 100 publicly traded companies in eight key sectors exposed to water-related risks. The report shows that many companies are not including material water risks and performance data in their financial filings, nor are they providing local-level water data, particularly in the context of facilities in water-stressed regions. Moreover, none of the 100 companies are providing comprehensive water data on their supply chains, an especially glaring omission given that the vast majority of many corporations' water footprint is in the supply chain.

The shortcomings are evident in the report's final scores. Using a scoring scale of 0 to 100, the three highest scoring companies were UK beverage company Diageo (NYSE: DEO), Swiss mining company Xstrata (XSTAN. SW) and U.S. electric power company Pinnacle West (NYSE: PNW) (owner of Arizona Public Services) with 43 points, 42 points and 38 points, respectively. Eighty of the 100 companies scored fewer than 30 points.

"Most companies provide basic disclosure on overall water use and water scarcity concerns, but their focus and attention so far is not nearly at the level needed given the enormity of this growing global challenge," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which published the report, Murky Waters: Corporate Reporting on Water Risk. "Our global economy runs on water and in many parts of the world this finite resource is under threat. Companies must do more to disclose their potential exposure from this issue and their strategies for responding."

With analytical support from UBS, the report evaluates the quality, depth and clarity of water risk disclosure in both voluntary and mandatory corporate reporting through June 30, 2009. The data for the report was provided by Bloomberg's Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data and analytics service.

The report assesses companies in eight key sectors: beverage, chemicals, electric power, food, homebuilding, mining, oil and gas and semiconductors.

"We chose sectors where water security concerns are likely to have a material impact on business, whether through regulatory, legal or reputational constraints that in some cases can go so far as to threaten a firm's very 'license to operate'," said Julie Hudson, global head of SRI and Sustainability Research at UBS Investment Bank. "It is clear that any threat to water security could have a significant impact on the bottom-line of such companies."

The report scored the companies based on five key categories of disclosure: water accounting, risk assessment, direct operations, supply chain and stakeholder engagement.

Within each category, sub-elements were divided to produce a final scored assessment based on the depth and clarity of corporate disclosures. An extra "opportunities" category was created for two of the eight industry groups--chemical firms and homebuilders--which resulted in those sectors being scored on a 0- to 112-point scale. Among the key overall findings:

* The mining sector scored highest overall, followed by the beverage industry. Companies in the homebuilding sector had the lowest overall scores.

* Only 21 companies disclose targets to reduce water use, and even fewer--just 15 companies--had goals to reduce wastewater discharge.

* Only 17 companies report local-level water data and only a handful provide the information in the context of operations in water stressed regions.

The report comes as rising populations, rapid economic growth in developing countries, climate change and growing regulation are triggering growing water availability concerns in the U.S and abroad. The report cites numerous examples where impacts are already being felt by vulnerable industry sectors, including:

* In 2009, water shortages in California devastated the state's agricultural industry, leading to an estimated loss of 21,000 jobs and more than $1 billion in revenues.

* During the 2007-08 drought in Georgia, a severe reduction in hydropower generation due to low water levels forced electric power firm Southern Co. to buy $33 million in fossil fuel-based energy.

* Mining company Newmont faced protests by thousands of local residents near its gold mine in Peru due to water concerns that led the company to relinquish access to 3.9 million ounces of gold reserves in 2004.

The report comes at a time of increasing pressure from investors for improved corporate disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks that they face. On Jan. 27, in response to investor requests, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued formal "interpretive guidance" clarifying the type of information that companies should be disclosing regarding material climate change risks and opportunities, including those relating to water-availability risk.

The report builds on the SEC's guidance with specific recommendations for companies to improve their water-related disclosure. It recommends that companies:

* include material water risk factors and performance data in their financial filings

* provide water performance data broken down to the facility level for operations in water-stressed regions

* outline actions and policies for assessing and managing water risks, including quantified targets for reducing wastewater and water use

* disclose how they are collaborating with stakeholders and suppliers on water risks, including setting performance goals for key supply chains

* outline specific strategies for developing water-related products with strong market potential in a water-constrained world.

The report also recommends that investors:

* engage the companies they own in water-intensive sectors about how they are assessing and disclosing water risks and related performance information

* ask their asset managers to assess and engage companies on water and other ESG risks and opportunities--and make this a stipulation in Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and annual performance reviews;

* support investor initiatives, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, the United Nations' Principles for Responsible Investment's work with the CEO Water Mandate, to achieve increased water disclosure.

The report is available at the link below.

Website: www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=1200

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

Online Emission Calculators: Useful for Business?

Green Economy Post — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:23:00 -0800

by Peter Garvin

In recent years there has been a 'boom' in the availability of online carbon emission calculation tools. It seems as though every company with the slightest interest in the area is offering assistance on both commercial and personal levels. This do-it-yourself approach offers pros and cons, opportunities and problems. Are these tools reliable? Do they do what they say they do or are they simply a way to appear green whilst actually doing very little? This article seeks to explain the issues surrounding this type of emissions calculation and answer these important questions.

Arguments for Carbon Accounting

Recently, it seems that economic contraction has had important (though to some extent contradictory) implications for the greening of production and consumption. Last year, some commentary in the media anticipated that current economic recession conditions bode a new 'age of austerity' where consumers (and businesses) will be compelled to save more and reduce 'wasteful' consumption. This trend would also seem to link to debates in the academic literature relating to the need for a shift in societal values to curb conspicuous consumption in the developed world and the need for reductions in material and energy consumption and a greater focus on quality of life improvements and 'sufficiency as policy'. It was also said, on the other hand, that the credit crunch and economic downturn may pose a set-back insofar as green and more ethical products and services which continue to be more expensive, lose market share to the cheaper products and services they seek to displace.

Government regulations on corporate CO2 emissions are not the only reason firms may wish to support green initiatives during an economic downturn; environmental programs also help to demonstrate company commitment to sustainability, improve staff morale and retention and attract new customers. Bearing that in mind, it is easy to see why many companies are keen to establish their level of emissions but are not willing to fork out capital to a consultant to do it. This is where "do-it-yourself" carbon accounting comes into play. This process (usually in the form of free online carbon calculators) offers both positive and negative facets to businesses and the greater good. Approach and Boundaries As carbon footprinting is a relatively new procedure, it is understandable that there is confusion about the appropriate means and boundaries to adopt for these impact analyses. The boundary of a carbon footprint can vary depending on how it was calculated and how much responsibility the entity being footprinted is willing to take on. It can also, particularly in the case of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), depend hugely on time and cost associated with the calculation. For instance, to use a modern, if unrelated example, should a consumer be responsible for the electricity purchases of an aluminium producer far down the supply chain of producing an iPod? Should Apple be held responsible for these purchases and thus account for them in its own footprint? What about the aluminium producer itself? It is clear that in the case of any complicated product, any number of different players in the supply chain could claim responsibility for the emissions associated with producing materials, basic chemicals, and other low-value-added goods that end up embedded in final consumer goods. If it is desirable to achieve total GHG accounting without double-counting, multiple counting of responsibility is problematic. The point is that if everyone footprinted their own operations, the system would run perfectly. Each stage of production would be accounted for by those directly involved and embedded carbon data could be passed on up the supply chain. The problem is that until the system becomes that advanced, there are issues with who feels responsible for what. In my opinion, why should one company be punished for taking a proactive approach and trying to calculate its emissions by being required to spend time calculating the emissions of others who do not have the same proactive approach? Just as there are problems with counting only direct emissions and energy inputs, there are problems with responsibility sharing as well. Firms often produce many different products, all of which have different supply chains, and sharing responsibility with both their suppliers and their consumers for all these products would likely produce a harrowing accounting task. Even if this issue could be overcome, it is unlikely many firms would spend the necessary time and money to calculate and, more importantly, understand this type of footprint. If calculating footprints remains voluntary for firms, simplicity must be valued highly in the design of protocols. It is probably for such reasons that the original protocols for carbon footprinting were written from a company, instead of a product, perspective. The LCA technique for carbon footprinting is a perfect example of an approach from a product perspective; however it is notable that the majority of methodologies (GHG Protocol; ISO 14064; PAS 2050; online calculators) do not follow its approach. Online Calculators Despite the broad use of the term 'carbon footprint' in both the academic and the public domain, neither a clear definition nor standard measurement is applied universally. The term is being defined by common usage. Until recently there were no attempts at standardizing the methods for measuring CO2 emissions and consequently, no standards for becoming carbon neutral. With this in mind, and the consideration that a single, proliferating 'standard' does not exist, carbon calculators, as long as allowing for the emissions necessary to satisfy the base level of a carbon footprint, can be valid tools. The carbon footprint process is, thus far, still a voluntary measure for the majority of SMEs. The voluntary nature explains the widespread variation in methodology and use of the carbon footprint as a reporting and behavioral change tool. Governmental policies with regard to standards for measurement and reporting on the carbon footprint are yet to be developed. The base level of emissions calculation suggested by all three emerging "standards" (GHG Protocol, ISO 14064, and PAS 2050) is that of direct emissions. Many online calculators fully consider the use of direct emissions needed for a base level carbon footprint. The problem with this is that the online calculators have different sources of conversion factors (data on the amount of CO2 produced by an activity), and thus may give different results, allowing a firm to report a lower amount of emissions simply by choosing their calculation tool carefully. This may be something to address in future as emissions reporting becomes more commonplace in the market. A key consideration in the utilization of the online calculators is their ease of use. Concepts such as the carbon footprint have gained momentum among organizations precisely because of this characteristic: it is easy to grasp and indicates the direct effect of an organization on the environment. SMEs depend more heavily on easily accessible tools such as internet-based carbon calculators because of the barriers they face to implement environmental management systems. Therefore SMEs require different tools than the ones so far developed for larger corporations and online carbon calculators could provide a valuable tool to analyze their environmental impact. This overcomes many of the barriers to SME uptake of environmental initiatives including a lack of knowledge, expertise and funding, as well as cost. This has a two-fold effect in terms of SMEs. Firstly, it means the company is more likely to be able to perform the calculation in the consistently year on year. Secondly, the ease of use means that the company are more likely to be able to complete the annual study without complications, and without the need to source costly outside help. Both of these factors increase the likelihood that the company will carry on performing the calculation and presumably addressing its result, thus increasing the positive effects on the environment and company credentials. Reliability Two of the primary concerns within the literature when speaking in reference to online carbon calculators are those of reliability and accuracy. Carbon calculators are a useful alternative only when they are both accurate and effective. A 2008 study saw that the recent rise in carbon calculators has been accompanied by inconsistencies in output values given similar inputs for individual behavior, stating that, in some cases, values can vary by as much as several tonnes per activity. These variations in input could influence both the types of steps companies take and the level of overall effort put in (e.g. the total amount of emissions reductions completed or offsets purchased). However, this difference in calculation does not necessarily have to be negative. If some over-estimate and some under-estimate it may be a fair assumption that things would 'level-out' on a global scale. It also neglects the fact that over-estimation, if only by the magnitude of a few tonnes, may have little effect on people's desire to offset, and add a few tonnes extra to the fight against climate change. One of the main factors criticized in the wealth of online calculators is the lack of inclusion of various business activities, such as air freight, which would prevent a business calculating the effects of all its activities. This may be possible to combat by using other tools to work out the missing emissions. High level support has been shown for the general theory behind carbon calculators as the UK's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) produced its own, funded by Environment Secretary David Miliband under the New Labor government in 2007. This shows a certain belief in them from a wider organization. Admittedly it is a personal emissions calculator but the thought processes behind its publication are one and the same - an easy, low cost technique to encourage the establishing of carbon footprints. Lots of published work in the area criticized the fact that different calculators used different inputs. This may well be the case but as long as a calculator is used that has inputs to cover all activities and operations of the company, need this be a problem? It seems that much of the criticism applies to the lack of a worldwide or even national methodology that can be used by all, thus standardizing the process. This means that essentially there is not a level playing field. As stated earlier, standardization of the process is a long term goal that is far from implemented. Consequently, in the mean time, does it not make sense that the use of any tool that can account for a firm's activities in terms of emissions will have a positive effect? Beyond the Footprint It has been said that all calculators fail to enable the user to effectively understand and act upon the results of the carbon footprint calculations, and that calculators available to SMEs therefore do not go beyond providing a snapshot of the organization's environmental impact. While an understanding of the implications of the footprint is critical in effectively trying to improve business' sustainable practices, I believe it hugely unfair to assume that delivery of this understanding should be a major function of the calculator. A calculator, by definition, works out the figures. It is a tool to generate a number. The implication that it should be a one-stop-shop for calculation and sustainability advice is too much to expect, certainly given the relatively infantile development stage of carbon accounting worldwide. It can be said, then, that internet carbon calculators do not provide an accurate and effective option to act upon an organization's carbon footprint. They can, however, provide an accurate way to measure it providing due diligence is exercised in calculator selection. Conclusion To summarize, online carbon calculators, selected correctly and used with care, can provide a valid and usable result, particularly in the case of SMEs. The accessibility and low cost of these tools are allowing the spread of carbon footprinting to extend much further that it would if more complex and costly. If the only effect of this is to act as a precursor to lower tier emission trading schemes, or more effective accounting protocols, it is still a very good thing. After all, if only 1% of the companies assessing their emissions in this way were to offset, that is still far more of a reduction worldwide than if the tools weren't available, regardless of accuracy. Is it not true that every little helps? Reprinted with permission from Green Economy Post