Helping Business Adapt to Climate Change

As climate change sets in, its impacts — increasing severity of storms and weather disasters, receding snow and rivers, advancing deserts, and more frequent landslides and floods — will test companies’ ability to effectively deliver high-quality products and services.

In response, BSR is launching a series of briefs to illustrate how these changes will affect each industry and what current adaptation practices look like, beginning with an examination of the food, beverage, and agriculture sector (PDF).

Some effects of climate change will be familiar, such as crop failures and ensuing price shocks, but over the next several years, they will happen with more frequency and with even higher insurance costs. Beyond direct business impacts, companies will also need to understand how climate change will affect their most vulnerable stakeholders — the poor, citizens of developing countries, and women — who will face increasing risks due to drought, disease vectors, and the perils of migration.

The good news is that many resources on business adaptation to climate change are already available (see end of article). McKinsey & Company developed a cost curve for adaptation (PDF), for example, which highlights different adaptation options and shows that investment paybacks can be short. Also, companies do not need to choose between adapting to climate change and helping to mitigate it; the distinction between these two is rarely clear and we should do both together.

There are also tools that translate state-of-the-art climate monitoring, prediction, and imagery into practical information to help companies improve their relevant governance and decision-making processes. These tools include: the Climate Administration Knowledge Exchange (CAKE), Google Earth Engine, the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, and weADAPT. Companies can also take advantage of new market opportunities by providing solutions to enable effective adaptation.

There are several obstacles to climate adaptation, even for those most committed to proactive and responsible responses. First, the language of adaptation does not resonate well beyond specialists, so communicating on the topic is difficult. As Carmel McQuaid, Climate Change Manager at Marks & Spencer, recently told us, it’s usually more effective to engage stakeholders by communicating on the topics that matter most to them. For example, retailers would be most concerned with their ability to continue to sell high-quality products, such as coffee. For companies that thrive on innovation, positioning adaptation as part of the portfolio of trends affecting the industry is usually more effective than treating it as a standalone topic.

Another obstacle is the complexity and uncertainty of the climate. This goes for today’s weather, let alone the future of the climate more broadly, as evidenced by the fact that we are not well-equipped to handle disasters such as the recent floods in Pakistan and Australia. The fact is that we do not know how to properly prepare for disasters even when they are expected. This is partially due to the cognitive difficulty of coping with low-probability, high-impact consequences, and it is also a result of markets and organizations that don’t encourage or reward proactive preparation.

Third, our first reactions may not serve us well. Companies are at risk of taking seemingly sensible actions that may lead to adverse effects elsewhere or on others. Such “maladaptation” (PDF) can take many forms, such as combating heat by turning up the air conditioning (which would produce more greenhouse gas emissions), using desalinization technologies that pollute marine environments, raising prices or otherwise excluding vulnerable customers that depend on insurance or other essential services, or giving customers more resources without the incentives to conserve.

This is partly a result of focusing on the specific, current problem at hand while not taking into account the broader repercussions. It is also a result of failing to identify where weather risk and other familiar issues have climate change dimensions.

Identifying the Hotspots

Over the past year, we’ve been following the topic of adaptation through discussions with BSR member companies, leading and participating in workshops and forums, including the U.N. climate talks in Cancun, and examining business responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project on climate risks and opportunities.

In doing so, we’ve found that while climate change impacts are ubiquitous, there are some approaches companies can use to identify and focus on vulnerable “hotspots” in their operations, supply chains, and key markets. Hotspots emerge both as physical locations and features of the company.

In terms of location, companies with operations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America face some of the greatest risks due to the extreme water loss or flooding predicted for those regions. In addition, these areas suffer from a general lack of resources to respond to problems.

In all parts of the world, coasts, flood plains, and ecological boundary zones, including mountains and islands, are vulnerable. In many cases, cities (PDF), as well as settlements where subsistence is marginally viable, are especially risk-prone. Companies should consider how their direct operations and key partners and markets are situated in relation to these physical areas.

As for companies themselves, a key vulnerability is a dependence on natural conditions to foster crops, snow, and other climate-sensitive inputs, which are likely to migrate and, on average, degrade. In general, long-lived and fixed assets, such as mines, as well as extended supply chains and distribution routes, tend to be more exposed to physical disruption.

Finally, lack of transparency is a problem: A combination of weather events and climate-related political actions are increasingly likely to disrupt energy availability and general operations of suppliers and other partners. While companies may be able to take steps to mitigate their vulnerability, they will have a hard time doing so if they are unable to make informed judgments about their partners’ key issues, options, and systems for making decisions.

When companies look ahead, here are some issues that they should tune into:

Communicating about climate risks and opportunities: Investors expect companies to report on physical, regulatory, and other risks and opportunities of climate change through the Carbon Disclosure Project. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has also made informed reporting on climate risks a requirement. Also, working with distressed communities to cope with climate change is an increasingly material issue for annual sustainability reporting.

Meet needs responsibly: The private sector is being called upon to drive an effective response to climate change, ranging from delivering hydration and other growing basic needs, applying finance and information and communications technology to build more resilient infrastructure, and solving the potential problems of maladaptation.

To do so, businesses need to foster connections and discussions that help deliver sustainable solutions to society under dynamic and uncertain conditions.

Create climate-resilient local benefits: Many sources of risk for companies are likely to be found far away from their headquarters and centered in local communities where, for example, vulnerabilities to floods, windstorms, and droughts are growing. These communities need help with local investments to developing disaster-response systems and continuity plans. Companies should look for ways to help their community partners achieve triple-win impacts by reducing the effects of disasters, adapting to climate change, and safeguarding development gains.

Each month through July, we will produce discussion briefs for specific industry sectors on what they are and should be doing about climate adaptation. Each brief will include basic tools and references. As we produce this series, we’ll be holding discussions with BSR members and inviting feedback. We’ll also store our resources and other tools at www.bsr.org/adaptation.

Further Information

Climate change adaptation can be defined as “adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts,” including “changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change.” For more information and a list of suggested reading, visit www.bsr.org/adaptation.

First posted at GreenBiz.

A Sneak Peek at the New Rules for Supply Chain Footprinting

The art and science of carbon footprinting is about to take a step forward: The long-awaited launch of guidance for managing network and product lifecycle impacts is just around the corner.

If that’s news to you — and you have anything to do with managing a business with a significant supply chain — here’s your chance to get up to speed.

First, a little background. Carbon footprinting took off in 2001, when the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) established the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. This standard outlined a practical way to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced from materials and energy use in business operations.

It did this by offering an accounting framework with three GHG emissions “scopes:” Scope 1 is a sum of emissions from fuel, refrigerants, industrial gases, and other materials combusted or used at sites the company owns or controls; Scope 2 adds up emissions linked to electricity used by those facilities; and Scope 3 encompasses all other emissions in the business value chain.

Measurement of the “internal,” or “operational,” emissions of scopes 1 and 2 has always been straightforward, and thus those standards have been rapidly adopted. Today, a significant majority of the Global 500 companies report on operational emissions.

Scope 3, however, has incited many debates over interpretation. Originally referring to emissions from supply chains, including products, waste, distribution, and travel, Scope 3 outlined a much larger and more complex set of issues than those that characterize emissions from internal operations.

While Scope 3 has always been recognized as important, and indeed reporting has been growing, companies have been clamoring for more detailed guidance. Many companies have focused on addressing more easily measured Scope 3 activities, such as business travel and employee commuting. Also, business networks, such as the Clean Cargo Working Group and the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, have begun developing shared approaches for issues very focused on their industries.

But there has not been a common language for measuring Scope 3 impacts in detail across industries. That’s about to change.

By summer 2011, WRI and WBCSD will finalize the Scope 3 standard and the related Product standard. This will be the result of a three-year project involving more than 1,500 diverse stakeholders from governments, research institutions, businesses, and civil society, all contributing to various discussions and drafts. BSR and many of its member companies have been represented in a technical working group.

Unofficially, this has been even longer in the making. A year after the 2001 launch of the first edition of the Corporate standard, a working group explored ways to flesh out Scope 3 with lifecycle assessment tools, finding that significant time and effort would be needed to produce an effective framework.

What led us to this final chapter? Brian Glazebrook, a senior manager of social responsibility at Cisco Systems who has been involved with Scope 3 efforts from the start, says that lifecycle and supply chain information is becoming more commoditized and therefore less expensive, while at the same time there is more demand for transparency. We have crossed a threshold that is making Scope 3 management undeniably more attractive to companies, and the case to do more will only become stronger.

Following are highlights of a recent discussion I had with Pankaj Bhatia (pictured below), director of the GHG Protocol at WRI, offering a preview of what’s to come.

Ryan Schuchard: Pankaj, how will the Scope 3 standard help companies?

Pankaj Bhatia: It will enable them to develop an organized understanding of the impacts, risks, opportunities, and considerations from energy and other sources of GHG emissions throughout business networks and relationships. As a comprehensive accounting and reporting framework, it will facilitate identifying GHG reduction opportunities, setting reduction targets, and tracking performance in value chains. In turn, it will provide a sophisticated framework for reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in annual CSR reports, and for other GHG transparency programs and B2B initiatives. It also may lead companies to develop stronger relationships with suppliers by reducing waste and improving efficiency through GHG management in their supply chains.

RS: What kinds of companies should utilize it?

PB: The Scope 3 standard is written for companies of all sizes in all economic sectors. It is especially applicable to three types of companies: (1) those with significant emissions in their upstream or downstream activities, (2) those that would like to engage and inform their stakeholders about their value chain emissions and performance, and (3) those wanting to identify business risks and opportunities in their value chain and develop strategies to minimize risks and leverage opportunities.

RS: Is it a full “standard” — in the way the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is a standard?

PB: Yes. A GHG Protocol publication qualifies as a standard if it provides verifiable accounting and reporting requirements. The standard uses the term “shall” (e.g., “Companies shall account for and report all Scope 3 emissions and disclose and justify any exclusions.”) to indicate what is required for a GHG inventory to be in conformance with the Scope 3 standard.

Companies may use the inventory information to identify, prioritize, and guide innovative emissions reduction activities within and across Scope 3 activities. For example, a company whose largest source of value-chain emissions is contracted logistics may choose to optimize these operations through changes to product packaging to increase the volume per shipment, or by increasing the number of low-carbon logistics providers. Additionally, companies may utilize this information to change their procurement practices or improve product design or product efficiency, resulting in reduced energy use.

RS: Will there be any completely new ideas?

PB: Yes. Scope 3 emissions are now categorized into 15 distinct, mutually exclusive categories that avoid double counting. These categories are intended to provide companies with a systematic framework to organize, understand, and report on the diversity of Scope 3 activities within a corporate value chain.

Also, there is more guidance on characterizing confidence in data. This guidance was requested by stakeholders, since Scope 3 emissions data may be relatively less accurate and precise than Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data. Additionally, the Scope 3 standard allows for a range of data collection and calculation approaches, with a varying range of data quality. Scope 3 data may include reliance on value chain partners to provide data, broader use of secondary data, and broader use of assumptions and modeling (such as for downstream emissions categories, such as the use of sold products by consumers).

Higher uncertainty for Scope 3 calculations is acceptable as long as the data quality of the inventory is sufficient to support the company’s goals and the information needs of key stakeholders such as investors, while providing transparency on limitations of the Scope 3 data to avoid potential misuses. Companies are therefore required to provide a description of the accuracy and completeness of reported Scope 3 emissions data and a description of the methods and data sources used to calculate the inventory. The standard provides descriptions of accuracy and completeness, guidance on describing data quality, and guidance on uncertainty. The standard doesn’t require companies to provide a quantitative confidence level or confidence interval associated with the reported emissions data — though this is optional.

RS: Will the standard provide a good tool to compare companies against each other?

PB: No and yes. First, it is important to understand the limits. Companies’ selection of one or more Scope 3 categories and their choice of whether to base measurement on operational control or financial investment is based on considerations that aren’t easily comparable across companies, like corporate vision and business risk. That means even companies that seem like peers may not prioritize the same things, so it would not be meaningful to uniformly prescribe what should “count.” Also, within categories, the level of data quality and control will vary with the level of vertical integration and the public data infrastructure where sites are located.

What it will enable is comparison of the level of depth that companies measure and report on. This will help to clarify that a larger footprint doesn’t necessarily mean a company is worse off, but rather, that it might be examining its networks in more detail. Also, while the standard won’t provide a robust way to directly compare GHG performance between companies, it will let a company measure performance against its own baseline, which potentially could be compared between companies.

As companies take up this type of reporting, there will be opportunities to develop more specific norms and benchmarking for better comparability among more specific situations. In many ways, that’s what this standard provides—a platform that creates unified language across industries for going deeper on comparisons of key applications through development of sector-specific rules.

RS: What kind of data will companies need to gather to measure Scope 3?

PB: The standard asks that companies select data that is most representative in terms of technology, time, and geography; most complete; and most precise. We have categorized data needed to calculate Scope 3 emissions into two types: primary data and secondary data. Primary data means specific data provided by suppliers or other companies in the value chain related to the reporting company’s activities, including primary activity data, and emissions data that is calculated using primary activity data (e.g., primary activity data combined with a secondary emission factor). Primary data does not include financial data (e.g., spend) used to calculate emissions.

Secondary data refers to industry-average data (such as from published databases, government statistics, literature studies, and industry associations), financial data, proxy data, and other generic data. Primary data and secondary data each have advantages. For example, primary data best enables performance tracking of individual value chain partners and supply chain GHG management, while secondary data can be a useful tool for efficiently prioritizing investments in primary data collection and for tracking emissions from minor sources.

Choosing the appropriate type of data depends on the company’s business goals. The standard asks companies to make sure that the data quality of the Scope 3 inventory is sufficient to ensure that the inventory is relevant — both internally and for a company’s stakeholders — and that it supports effective decision making.

Companies may find that for a given activity, secondary data is of higher quality than the available primary data. In this case, if the company’s primary goal is to maximize the data quality of the Scope 3 inventory to improve decision making where accuracy is important, it should select secondary data. If the company’s primary goal is to set reduction targets and track performance from specific operations within the value chain, or to engage suppliers, the company should select primary data.

RS: What does the Scope 3 standard have to do with the Product standard?

PB: While the Scope 3 standard covers measurement and accounting to characterize the many broad types of corporate networks and relationships, the Product standard focuses on a view of the whole lifecycle of individual products. These two standards, which have been developed in parallel, share many features in common: accounting principles, approach to data allocation, approach to data collection, and treatment of confidence. A key difference is that a Scope 3 inventory is structured by organization-wide business activities, such as leased operations and employee travel, while a Product inventory is organized by key stages in the lifecycle of a product, like processing and recycling. These two different tool sets reflect two different needs: on the one hand, characterizing products’ lifecycles, especially from the view of the customer; on the other, examining the administration of organizational interrelationships and networks, something investors in particular are concerned about.

Watch for the release of the final Scope 3 and Product text next spring, and contact Ryan if you have questions.

First posted at GreenBiz.

Why Russia is the Land of Opportunity for Climate Action

Managers who want to lead on climate and energy should be looking carefully at Russia, where President Dmitry Medvedev has decreed a 40 percent reduction in energy intensity over the next decade.

The potential for scale is immense: Russia is one of the most inefficient countries in the world, the third-highest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) — both by traditional measures and in terms of exports for consumption — and its per capita emissions are on a path for the top spot by 2030. Yet Russia receives far less attention than its GHG-emitting peers, such as China and tropical rainforest countries.

Why is it overlooked? There are several reasons: Russia’s list of sustainability challenges, from nuclear waste to governance, is long, so climate change gets lost in the shuffle. Commentators focus on Russia’s struggling economy, asking things like whether “BRIC” really needs an “R,” signaling that attention is better paid where business is growing more predictably. Furthermore, non-Russians are perplexed about operating in what seems like too foreign a place — one that is European, Asian, and most of all, its own category altogether — and so give it wide berth.

Nonetheless, there are growing reasons for companies invested in Russia to proactively manage and reduce energy use in operations, by suppliers, and for customers.

The first is that Russia’s climate challenge is one that business is uniquely, and profitably, good at solving: audacious inefficiency, stemming from outdated equipment and obsolete management practices. Russia is the most energy-intensive (PDF) of the world’s 10 largest countries. Few, regardless of size, score higher, and many that do are Russia’s neighbors. Cost-effective efficiency measures could cut Russia’s energy use by as much as 45 percent (PDF), with prime opportunities in industry and manufacturing. One study has identified 60 measures representing more than $200 million in investments that can be made profitably.

Second, the government is showing increased willingness to incentivize action. In 2008, Medvedev signed presidential decree No. 889, a commitment to cut energy intensity by 40 percent by 2020. Last year he committed Russia to growing its renewables portfolio from less than 1 percent to 4.5 percent in that period. Medvedev then developed Russia’s first executive climate doctrine and began calling for action on climate change — a reversal of Vladimir Putin’s stance, symbolized by Putin’s infamous quip that climate change would be beneficial because it would mean fewer fur coats.

Now an innovation center is under development near Skolkovo, where companies such as Google and Intel are setting up research and development centers, similar to special business zones in China. In sum, there has been a change in the terms of debate in Russia, with climate change being taken more seriously by the government and productivity now a priority.

Another reason is that the drama of climate change is clearly unfolding in Russia, and so people are starting to appreciate the benefits of managing energy for sustainability. This summer, the hottest in 130 years, led to 27,000 wildfires and burning bogs, sending global wheat prices through the roof. Meanwhile, global warming is melting the arctic, where the government is leading a high-profile exploration, turning the most iconic imagery of climate change into a point of local news. Climate change is increasingly seen as real and important, making conversations more natural.

A fourth reason is Russia’s natural assets. The world’s most geographically expansive country, Russia is a storehouse of some of the world’s most significant natural assets and threats, from the greatest reserves of fossil fuels and forests to vast volumes of methane ominously locked up in tundra. If environmental markets are able to take hold in Russia — though it will be some time before the prerequisite monitoring and verification frameworks are instituted — business will have an opportunity to benefit from effective resource management on a vast scale. Heading in that direction in July, the government endorsed 15 clean-energy projects to start making use of its carbon credits.

Finally, Russia holds the key to a bigger puzzle: its 15-plus neighbors with similar ecological impacts and business environments, including burgeoning Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Succeeding in Russia also means opening possibilities for the whole region, which connects the markets of China, Europe, and the Middle East.

While these trends are encouraging, companies interested in managing climate and energy matters in Russia still must confront significant issues. Following are three key challenges that companies are likely to face and suggestions for addressing each of them.

Challenge #1: Low Awareness

Despite Medvedev’s efforts and the impact of this summer’s wildfires, there is still little social momentum for action on climate change in Russia. Many people still think that global warming will help this cold country. There is also generally a low appreciation of the impacts, risks, and opportunities that climate change creates for business. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), reflecting on 2009 reports from Russia’s top 50 companies, found that climate change is often misunderstood (PDF) in the country as a purely environmental, rather than strategic, topic.

Solution: In working with Russian partners new to the subject, emphasize the links between climate action, energy management and modernization, a political priority likely to draw more government resources. Medvedev has said that his country’s subpar economic influence is due partly to the fact that “energy efficiency and productivity of most of our businesses remain shamefully low.” He has made becoming “a leading country measured by the efficiency of production, transportation, and use of energy” the first of his five pillars of modernization.

With that in mind, connect with partners on the ways that energy hits the bottom line and discuss opportunities to modernize. This can lead to discussion of how action on climate change can create other benefits, from carbon credits to attracting more international investors.

Challenge #2: Governance Obstacles

A second challenge is that energy waste in Russia is rooted in systemic, sometimes dysfunctional governance, and companies will typically find government difficult to engage because if is needed on larger projects.

For example, IKEA was recently stymied by Lenenergo, the electricity utility, in simply hooking up to the grid, and has thus tabled new investments in Russia. This is a problem not only for companies, but the government itself, since it is unlikely to effectively address climate change without policies that instill confidence and encourage investments.

Governance obstacles also come in the form of entrenched non-transparency in companies. After China and Hong Kong, Russia has the largest share of Global 500 companies that don’t disclose to the CDP. Of the mere six firms among Russia’s top 50 that did respond to the CDP last year, only two reported emissions or energy reduction goals. Low transparency is a substantial constraint, since measurement and governance are considered cornerstones of effective climate and energy management.

Solution: Focus in the near term on capacity building rather than precise data disclosure. Given BSR’s experience in China, there should be substantial opportunities to help companies identify energy-saving opportunities and train energy managers, and to assist them with developing action plans and understanding their economic decisions.

Although these activities don’t address transparency directly, they can build trust with suppliers and create results that they will want to be transparent about. Even if you don’t start with a discussion about disclosure, companies that succeed on climate and energy management will have an incentive to communicate their results over time. For those that are ready, show how the process of disclosure can lead to learning about risks and opportunities and create a basis for management. For projects connected with government contracts, encourage standardized, effective processes on how the government will decide tenders by doing an integrity pact with bidding peers.

Challenge #3: Slow Going in the Policy Realm

Although Medvedev appears serious about leading his government toward modernization, he is the first to admit that progress will be gradual. Ultimately, the challenge of modernization is to cultivate, unleash, enable, and protect the innovative potential of the Russian people — and that will take time.

On climate in particular, there is no unifying policy, and the government does not appear motivated to curb emissions soon. The country’s climate negotiator, Alexander Bedritsky, says Russia should be judged on progress since 1990, like other countries. The problem with that, however, is that emissions plummeted with the economy in the 90s, and when it bottomed out in 1998, emissions were far below the 1990 level. Russia’s current proposal (PDF) to reduce emissions by around 20 percent from 1990 actually means letting them rise today until they are fully 20 percent higher than their low point. Therefore, even if energy intensity decreases under Medvedev’s plan, total energy use and GHG emissions are likely to rise.

Solution: Focus on voluntary business actions that generate tangible savings in the near term. Improvements in energy efficiency offer direct and virtually immediate cash savings, give companies a better view of their processes, and enjoy support by the government. In the context of other CSR issues, this is a relatively straightforward starting point. In doing so, watch other organizations that are invested in energy modernization, such as the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Finance Corporation, which may be able to offer signals and even more direct support.

To summarize, Russia holds vast potential for business action on climate change and should start to become a higher priority in managers’ minds. Doing sustainability work there is difficult because of low awareness, governance obstacles, and slow going in the policy realm.

Yet these challenges are surmountable, and conditions are increasingly favorable for climate and energy management. Companies have opportunities to start on practical initiatives that can make big impacts now, growing their efforts as policy and consumer behavior evolve.

First posted at GreenBiz.

Understanding the Benefits of CSR

This week, I spoke on the panel “ROI and the Triple Bottom Line: Can Companies Do Well by Doing Good?,” the first webinar in a series by Social Media Today. I shared thoughts on how to understand the benefits of CSR, and here’s what I covered.

First, the basics: What is CSR? CSR is the integration of environmental, social, and good governance practices into everything that business does, and the recognition of material aspects of nonfinancial issues that are integral to overall strategy and operations. These two ideas came from BSR President and CEO Aron Cramer and UN Global Compact Executive Director Georg Kell at the recent public debate on CSR. This definition is useful given the varying semantics out there: ESG, people-planet-profit, corporate citizenship, triple-bottom line. A recent paper found at least 37 different CSR definitions.

With that in mind, it’s important to understand the “constructs” of CSR in order to recognize its benefits:

  • Activities: Corporate responsibility activities can lead to concrete and even quick returns on investment. There are specific activities or projects—for example, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency—that can save a sizeable percentage of energy costs. Such returns can be found everywhere, from conserving water to using better materials. BSR’s factory-based women’s health initiative, HERproject, has also showed that people-related initiatives can lead to real, measurable benefits.
  • Systems: More generally, organization-wide management systems that embrace corporate responsibility often lead to better decision making, and ultimately a more economically efficient organization. Such systems include increasing transparency (e.g. through CSR and climate reporting); better governance (e.g. ensuring that the board has a sufficiently sophisticated view of risks and opportunities, and that incentives throughout the organization are mutually reinforcing); and systematic discourse with external stakeholders. Like with other company systems, such as marketing or HR, the direct results of better systems may be intangible, since it is more about creating a new platform for making investments than the return itself.
  • Vision: Finally, there is the broad potential of aligning society and business, which is found in optimistic sentiments like, “Our goals are to make money, make it ethically, and make a difference,” (GE’s corporate citizenship website) as well as its criticisms, such as Milton Friedman’s manifesto and Aneel Karnani’s recent case against CSR. Such statements of vision offer some of the most colorful discussions on CSR, though they are more inspirational than concrete in appraising impact one way or the other. One thing that is firm, however, is that CSR—as defined by Cramer and Kell above—is part of a long-term trend whereby companies that effectively manage greater accountability and complexity are likely to succeed.

That fact that CSR offers so many different types of benefits is one reason that it is stronger now than before the recession, and, as BSR recently found, why companies are planning to increase CSR budgets next year. As this important conversation about the benefits of CSR evolves, I look forward to continuing the discussion.

First posted at BSR.

The Latest CDP Results Reveal the Rise of Scope 3 Reporting

Last month’s release of the Global 500 Report, Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) annual summary of climate reporting by the world’s 500 largest companies, gives the most insight to date on corporations’ reporting about climate change and their supply chains.

What does it tell us?

First, the number of companies reporting on their supply chains continues to steadily grow. Two years ago, only about a quarter of the world’s top 500 companies reported on “Scope 3” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or the emissions from activities they have influence over, but are beyond direct ownership or control, such as in supply chains.

Last year, the reporting share climbed to 42 percent, and this year it grew to nearly half. That’s a steep change compared to reporting overall, which rose only a few percentage points this year to 82 percent.

At the same time, the quality and scope of reporting is improving dramatically. This year, for example, Kraft Foods said physical risks linked to climate change are not material, but they still described a whole set of supply chain and other issues that potentially matter. Kraft also clarified that they are closely examining supply chain issues to anticipate emerging enterprise risk and opportunities. The provision of this depth of information is a new development in CDP reporting, and has been aided in part by the more systematic ways that CDP is asking questions.

This relates to a third development: CDP made Scope 3 reporting more robust by expanding definitions this year. In following the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s Scope 3 Guidance under development, CDP transformed last year’s five categories into eight more specific ones, and then added nine more (see sidebar).

This helps transparency by increasing the comparability of reported figures. It also foreshadows the increasing sophistication of supply chain reporting to come. Indeed, Frances Way, CDP’s Head of Supply Chain, told me that CDP will continue working to ensure reporting requirements are aligned with the standard once finalized. Meanwhile, CDP is taking public comments on the design of the next survey.

Scope 3 emissions have taken center stage and turned out to be every bit as significant as we thought they would be. This raises an important question: Just how big are they?

In the summary report, CDP tallied aggregate figures by industry, finding Scope 3 to be on average about two times the amount of Scopes 1 and 2 emissions, which are sometimes called “internal” emissions. It will take a little digging, however, to get a representative number since 50 percent of companies don’t report Scope 3 at all. Of those that do, 40 percent only publish just one convenient category, such as transportation.

The companies to watch are the 10 percent that reported supplier emissions, and the even smaller 5 percent that reported supplier emissions beyond direct purchasing relationships.

For these companies, the Scope 3 multiple is much higher — more like five times greater for those reporting on direct suppliers, and 10 times more for those providing a comprehensive assessment. Some companies were much higher still: Kraft and Danone reported Scope 3 emissions that were more than 15 times the amount generated from their internal operations, and Unilever’s are more than 50 times greater.

As companies disclose their climate change and business interrelationships more fully, higher multiples like these are likely to become more common.

How to Open the Door to Supplier Disclosure

To learn more, I spoke to Kraft, which this year CDP named to its Climate Change Leadership Index, a designation for the most transparent companies taking action. Kraft is an interesting case because as recently as two years ago it had not reported Scope 3 emissions at all.

I asked Francesco Tramontin, associate director of global issues management, why Kraft is interested in managing and reporting supply chain emissions. Tramontin said that it is a logical extension of the company’s approach to climate change, and a natural step following Kraft’s achievement of GHG reduction targets within its own operations.

But, he said, Kraft’s increased CDP reporting didn’t begin with a reporting effort. Rather, the company’s R&D team leads its Scope 3 management efforts with the aim of collecting and interpreting data for strategic perspective and internal decision making. The reporting is a byproduct of these efforts, and Kraft began sharing it as management became aware of partners’ and stakeholders’ increasing interest.

One of the main benefits of Scope 3 management, Tramontin said, is that it provides an impetus to take a more careful look at internal management systems. It also enables Kraft to take part in important forums, such as the development of GHG Protocol Scope 3 Guidance.

Currently, Kraft is involved in testing a draft version of the guidance, and the company recently submitted feedback for it. According to Tramontin, participating in this governance-building effort has been beneficial. It has helped them exchange methodologies with peers and given them confidence in measuring and reporting in an environment where many communication standards are lacking.

One of Kraft’s main challenges has been deciding what types of information to publish. When Kraft set out to report Scope 3 emissions for the first time last year, the company had more information than it ended up reporting, but wanted to share the data in which it had the most confidence. The company published information in just two categories, business travel and logistics, which then represented about 40 percent of operational emissions. As Kraft did so, Tramontin said, it used a “lead with results” approach that emphasized progress against goals while remaining cautious about prognosticating.

This year, Kraft not only expanded the categories it reported on, it also found a way to provide more information on topics where there is more uncertainty. Kraft did this by disclosing emissions by subcategory with narrative descriptions and confidence estimates for each, ranging from plus or minus 20 percent (business travel) to about 40 percent (supply chain and end-of-life packaging). Tramontin said he couldn’t yet say whether Kraft would add more categories next year, but felt certain the quality and confidence of data would improve.

The Road Ahead

The supply chain will enter the picture more and more, Tramontin concluded. His experience, however, reveals a difficult balance that companies need to achieve. On the one hand, there is an incentive to report as openly as possible. On the other hand, there is pressure to ensure that disclosed information is trustworthy.

This leads Kraft and other companies to an important debate that is arguably the front line of supply chain reporting: the extent to which they can use the coarse data produced by life-cycle assessments and generalized industry “models,” versus more specific information provided by suppliers themselves.

The former is easier to obtain, but largely overlooks potentially vast differences in practices among peer suppliers; the latter can generate factory floor-level information about particular suppliers, but requires a much greater commitment of resources to manage.

Questions and answers regarding these issues will continue to unfold as new GHG Protocol guidance comes out this winter and companies report to CDP next May and beyond. In the meantime, here are some promising approaches borrowed from the experiences of Kraft and others.

1. Collect Data to Gain Insight for Prioritizing Sustainability Investments

In this context, reporting is important but it is a byproduct of understanding interconnections with suppliers, products, partners, and the physical world. This is really what most stakeholders are interested in.

2. Don’t Be Afraid of Your Footprint

The next phase of Scope 3 reporting will see more companies report on their impacts, more deeply and in more categories. This will allow greater comparability, better benchmarking, and more insightful discussion about ways forward.

Until that happens, a large Scope 3 footprint is a much better sign of leadership than no reported footprint. Scope 3 management can lead to enrolling suppliers directly in improvement efforts and leveraging their dollars and skills.

3. Address Budget and Resource Constraints by Using Sampling and Estimations

It is acceptable to provide information that is approximate or based on random and/or targeted verifications. The key to getting that right is to understand how accurate the information is, and make your level of confidence and uncertainty — like the figures themselves — transparent.

First posted at GreenBiz.

FTC’s New Anti-Greenwashing, Good-for-Business Green Guides

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released its long-awaited draft guidance on environmental marketing. The so-called “Green Guides” tell companies how to prevent misleading customers—and avoid FTC actions against them.
Why now? The FTC says consumers are confused about environmental claims such as “sustainable” or “offset,” which lack consistent rules for usage. In response, the FTC’s proposed guidance does three things:
  1. Requires claims to be substantiated. Companies should communicate on specific issues for which they provide competent and reliable scientific evidence and avoid ambiguous umbrella terms like “green” or “eco-friendly.”
  2. Prescribes action on targeted issues. While the FTC leaves methodology mostly to companies, it advises on a few issues where deception is rife and solutions are particularly obvious. For example, the guides say that if companies generate renewable energy onsite and then sell their environmental attributes separately, they shouldn’t also say that they use that renewable energy themselves. Categories of specific advice include: certifications and seals, degradability, compostability, ozone-safe/ozone-friendly, recyclability, free-of/non-toxic, renewable materials, renewable energy, and carbon offsets. See the FTC’s cheat sheet.
  3. Defines where to tread carefully. The FTC acknowledges that some issues are difficult to provide blanket guidance on. For example, life-cycle assessments and ecolabeling are complex and require context, while the determination of carbon offset quality may be better handled by agencies with more expertise. In cases where the FTC “lacks sufficient information on which to base guidance,” it promises to analyze claims on a case-by-case basis.
What does this direction mean for business? I asked three individuals. Kevin Myette, director of product integrity at outdoor retailer REI, told me: “Guidance on green marketing claims has been extremely loose for years, and as a result, industry and marketers have operated virtually unchecked for too long. The FTC’s action to further define the rules is not a bad thing as they are only asking for the truth.”
Stanford Graduate School of Business Professor Erica Plambeck was similarly hopeful. She told me that the guidance “will increase incentives for retailers like Walmart to invest in the measurement of environmental performance and to provide detailed information about environmental performance to consumers. Transparency will lead to improvement.”
Finally, Dara O’Rourke, founder of the Good Guide—a product-rating initiative—said that more FTC involvement isn’t only good for consumers, but also for business. That’s because “the more there is transparency, the more the leading firms will do well in the marketplace. It’s a win for smart, thoughtful, progressive companies. This is basic ‘Econ 101’.”

What to do next: In the near term, leave any suggestions you have for finalizing the Green Guides below (with your name and affiliation) or contact me, and we’ll aggregate and submit your suggestions to the FTC before the comment period closes on December 10.

First posted at BSR.


BSR Kicks Off New Energy Management Collaboration…and Just in Time

I’ve just returned from China where I attended the launch of BSR’s Energy Efficiency Partnership (EEP), a working group of 11 member companies working with 80 of their suppliers on energy management.

Participants discussed the many reasons why this is an important—and urgent—issue for their companies. Starbucks’ Director of Ethical Sourcing Kelly Goodejohn explained in an opening presentation that climate change poses a substantial threat to coffee, the company’s core business, and that energy management is the most direct thing they can do to stop greenhouse gases (GHG).

Felix Ockborn, a member of H&M’s Far East CSR Program Development team, relayed that working with suppliers to mitigate climate change impacts is vital to H&M’s CSR strategy because the issue is important to its customers. He also said that it is a fundamental part of working toward sustainable use of natural resources in H&M’s value chain.

The one issue, however, on everyone’s mind was the recent pressure from the Chinese government to curb energy waste, which resulted in the mandatory closure of more than 2,000 factories and the shutdown of power to companies in major manufacturing provinces like Jiangsu and Anhui. This obviously has a major impact on companies: An auto-components maker reported that it had to slow production, and a cement factory said it would have trouble meeting orders and likely lose work in progress.

The shutdowns are part of China’s efforts to meet its current five-year plan commitment to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent from 2005 levels. All signs indicate that such pressure will increase: The next five-year plan (due out soon) is likely to include even more stringent targets, and last year’s goal to reduce GHG emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 will also warrant additional measures.

EEP member, HP, has been keeping a close eye on these kinds of developments. Ernest Wong, Manager of HP’s Social and Environmental Responsibility Supply Chain program, said it’s important for factory managers to have tools for energy management so that they can understand their exposure and communicate their situation. In turn, explained Wong, it’s important for companies like HP to have a good picture of how suppliers can have better energy-saving plans and use energy management to minimize their carbon footprints.

We have a lot of exciting work to do. From helping executives in the board room understand the impacts of and options for energy efficiency to enabling managers on the shop floor to take action, I look forward to working with EEP to explore how companies can get the most out of energy management and raise awareness about the importance of working with suppliers to conserve energy.

First posted at BSR.

A Green Supply Chain Starts in China

As companies work to reduce their carbon footprint, the easiest steps to take are often the closest to home.

Yet for companies with global operations or supply chains, the biggest practical wins are likely to be found in improving energy efficiency of owned and supplier facilities overseas, where they have the ability to multiply impacts across tens, hundreds, or even thousands of sites through relatively simple central coordination.

For companies looking to increase their supply chain’s energy efficiency, China is a good place to start, for a number of reasons:

• China is a top location for energy-intensive manufacturing and a key node of many supply networks.
• As the No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases, China is likely to face more regulatory pressure to improve its performance.
• Due to its size, China is an ideal place to take energy-efficiency programs to scale.

BSR has spent the last several months helping Walmart establish its supplier energy efficiency program in China, where the company has set a target of improving the energy efficiency of 200 factories by 20 percent over the next three years. Working with Walmart, we have seen firsthand how initiatives from other countries can be adopted and adapted to the Chinese context.

This is BSR’s guide to starting energy efficiency programs at company operations and in company supply chains in China.

First, the Basics of Building a Successful Program Anywhere

Be Flexible. Effective energy-savings programs, particularly for owned operations, often focus on a specific goal but leave significant flexibility for how corporate targets will be met. Rather than taking a strictly top-down approach that regulates specific changes in technology and behavior, BSR recommends developing an initiative based on strong leadership and a clear mandate for change. This allows internal business units to find their own solutions and strategies for meeting targets.

The need for flexibility and autonomy is even more pronounced when companies deal with suppliers. Companies often have limited visibility into where the most significant energy savings might be in supplier operations. The best approach is therefore to provide specific tools or approaches that suppliers can use to discover and implement customized solutions for themselves.

Focus on the People and Systems, Not Advanced Technology. Companies usually gain more by investing in existing people and systems rather than expensive new technologies. For example, Swire Beverages, a major Hong Kong-based bottler, has created energy-management committees composed of production, engineering, environmental health and safety (EHS), and facilities managers who meet regularly to explore possible opportunities for reducing waste and increasing the productivity of manufacturing and logistics processes.

Get Buy-in From Senior Management. This is essential to establish a clear direction and goals for people within the company. Many of the most successful initiatives have been started by executives who challenged employees to reduce energy use or carbon emissions, and then charged each department with determining how to do it. In this way, management can solicit opinions from employees and reward those with innovative ideas. Inter-departmental competition can make the process fun and increase employee engagement. These management techniques can turn employees into an asset rather than a barrier to energy efficiency and waste reduction.

Management buy-in is also necessary when working with suppliers, even if they are small factories. In this situation, while you may target facilities or EHS personnel with trainings and tools, the general manager or other central decision-maker should be your direct liaison.

Don’t Wait to See the Data Before You Act. Good data can help you justify new programs and is important for evaluating progress toward goals, but program development can be unnecessarily slow if the initial focus is on assessment of current energy usage. During start-up, while you are building the system and processes for data reporting, most information should actually be flowing toward suppliers, in the form of trainings, tools, and ongoing support. With this approach, suppliers are more likely to align with the emphasis on action, which subsequently can be supported by trustworthy reporting.

Managing from Afar

The lack of hands-on operational control can present challenges — especially for companies with a large supplier base. To ensure that your program is creating the right incentives, invest time and resources in designing the appropriate system for reporting, monitoring, verification, and communicating the right message to suppliers.

Here are some tips for an effective supplier program:

• Clearly communicate goals, progress, and incentives. Demonstrate your own commitment with clear, quantitative expectations, and then work closely with suppliers to monitor and track progress, and share successes and challenges with other relevant stakeholders.

• Focus on multiple benefits. Energy-saving efforts can provide significant financial returns for suppliers.

• Emphasize that you are building long-term relationships with suppliers. Suppliers will recognize the need to be in line with the company’s goals and values to maintain the relationship, and with an emphasis on long-term partnership, suppliers can make investments that require a longer payback period.

• Explore cost-sharing options. In one supplier program, a global furniture firm paid the program and consulting fees, while the factory paid for energy meters.

• Promote open communication. Frequent and transparent communication on progress is an important way to provide both support and resources, and to collect credible data to verify claims about energy savings and emissions reductions.

Second, What’s Special About the Chinese Context?

Many of the lessons from BSR’s energy-efficiency work in China are equally valid for other locations, but working with suppliers in China has specific challenges related to the regulatory context, economic incentives, and the availability of technical and financial resources.

When working in China, business leaders should:

• See the government as not just a regulator but also a resource. The Chinese government has become increasingly proactive in encouraging improvements in energy intensity (amount of energy used per unit of GDP), and the government’s new regulatory targets have been accompanied by resources and training support for manufacturers. Government can also provide advice on project implementation as well as clear direction on how energy-intensity targets are being applied and measured.

• Watch utility and fuel prices. Currently, water and electricity are heavily subsidized, which limits the return on energy-savings investments. The economic argument for energy efficiency will be stronger when utility prices rise in accordance with government plans. Some cities and provinces are already beginning to test price increases. Be prepared to take advantage of improvements in the economic argument for energy savings, but meanwhile look for other ways to strengthen the business case.

• Seek financial help. Many sources provide financial help for energy-efficiency investments, including local governments, energy service companies (ESCOs), the Hong Kong Productivity Council, the International Finance Corporation’s  China Utility-Based Energy Efficiency Program, the P2E2 program (a partnership between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China’s State Environmental Protection Administration), and international and local banks.

• Use ESCOs to fill knowledge gaps. The ESCO market in China is young but growing rapidly, with both domestic and foreign service providers offering a range of consulting and project-management services. Some cheap, do-it-yourself methods such as installing energy meters can create useful data to help suppliers understand where the energy savings opportunities lie, so they can make an informed decision about when to call for external consulting expertise. BSR has also been working with ESCOs to provide low-cost technical training sessions for factory managers, as consultants are often willing to share basic information and tips on energy management at supplier forums and workshops.

Work on energy efficiency in China has been gradually building for a few years, and it is now expanding rapidly as an increasing number of global companies endeavor to improve supplier performance along with their own environmental impacts. This presents a real opportunity for global companies with operations and supply chains in China to make a bigger impact in emissions reduction.

First posted at GreenBiz.

A Business Guide to Managing U.S.-China Climate Relations

Earlier this year, we noted several factors that are key to staying on the critical path to an effective climate treaty: The U.S. must enact serious climate legislation, both China and the U.S. would have to ratchet up their respective commitments, and the U.S. Senate needs to ratify the international treaty produced by negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

There is movement forward. On June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the nation’s first-ever cap-and-trade bill that is also known as Waxman-Markey. China and the U.S. have held numerous climate policy talks, and the U.S. has exerted more leadership in U.N. negotiations than it has in more than a decade. At the recent G8 summit, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao joined other heads of major economies in agreeing that they should not allow the world to warm more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Yet China still has not committed to specific emissions cuts and targets, a step not only essential to the fight against global warming, but one that will also influence whether the U.S. Senate passes Waxman-Markey. Whatever happens in the Senate, it is clear that climate will remain a dominant trade theme between China and the U.S., the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 greenhouse gas emitters. For business, this means that a new policy landscape on emissions will take shape, with potential impacts on regulatory regimes in both countries as well as transnational issues, such as supply chain emissions.

The following guide offers insight into what you can do to ensure that your company is positioned for success in this rapidly changing climate.

Anticipate: Understand the Emerging Landscape

Upcoming legislation has the potential to reshape the way U.S. businesses use energy resources, both at home and abroad. Two key issues will determine whether China and the U.S. move toward meaningful cooperation on climate issues in the near future. The first is whether China accepts emissions-reductions targets; the second is whether the U.S. Senate passes a Waxman-Markey bill that China does not perceive as overly restricting Chinese imports.

China’s current climate programs are limited to the promotion of energy efficiency, and the country’s leadership shows little sign of moving toward carbon-dioxide emissions caps, despite pressure from the U.S. On the U.S. side, domestic manufacturing lobbyists are creating pressure for an eventual cap-and-trade law to contain measures to protect the U.S. from inaction by China. Watch these relationships as the bill goes through markup by July 31 and through committee by September 18, in preparation for a fall vote.

If Waxman-Markey passes, the Senate likely will vote in December on a global climate treaty brought back from Copenhagen by chief U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern. To secure ratification, perceived leadership by China will be even more important. According to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 60 votes required for cap-and-trade are within reach, but the 67 votes needed to ratify a treaty will be nearly impossible without more significant commitments than China has signaled so far.

China — which has consistently positioned itself as a developing economy that cannot afford to cut emissions — even as it pushes other countries to make sharp cuts — knows that as the largest global emitter, no climate treaty will work without it. And while negotiators undoubtedly will continue to take a tough line in the build-up to Copenhagen, there already have been signals that a deal can be reached. After his June trip to Beijing, Stern said he expects China to commit to stabilization of long-term emissions around 450 parts per million, as well as a target year for peak emissions.

To stay apprised of possible new commitments by China, follow China’s evolving 2011 to 2015 five-year plan, watch ongoing meetings this summer between Stern and China’s climate change envoy, Xie Zhenhua, and pay attention to whether coalitions of industrialized and developing nations are able to agree on reduction targets as the G-20 meeting in the U.S. approaches.

A thornier issue is how the two countries will manage emissions in value chains that cross their borders. In March, China’s head climate negotiator, Li Gao, famously asserted that the U.S. should take responsibility for emissions that happen in China due to the significant volume of goods produced in China for the U.S. market. Then in June, when the U.S. House of Representatives added mandatory carbon import tariffs for countries like China to Waxman-Markey, China’s Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei firmly stated that his country opposed that possibility. President Obama has said he prefers to avoid such measures, but others have pointed out that tariffs could strengthen the U.S. negotiating position as the Senate tries to develop a politically feasible bill.

Assess: Know Where Your Company Stands

Regardless what happens in the near-term with U.S. legislation, bilateral relations with China, and the Copenhagen negotiations, companies should assess how their markets, operations and supply chains will be impacted by potential new policies and regulations, which may include price and market mechanisms, financial incentives, and technical requirements.

All signs indicate that over the long-term, climate change and related policy responses will push prices up for carbon-derived energy. The key question for global companies is whether climate policy will evolve in a smooth and comprehensive way, or whether pockets of local opposition will spark balkanized schemes. The former scenario is most conducive to efficiency and low-transaction costs, the latter more likely to lead to gaming and continued erosion of public trust. So, when considering your company’s exposure, think not only about the direct cost of carbon, but also overall market stability and the risks of an uncertain policy regime.

A related issue is the establishment of border measures, which are aimed at addressing cross-border emissions or “leakage,” while applying even trade pressures to both sides. If border measures are passed through Waxman-Markey or other legislation, don’t count on a trade war, but do expect the World Trade Organization (WTO) to permit them. The WTO is likely to treat cap-and-trade the same way it treats value-added taxes, with border taxes allowed if they reduce distortions. When assessing your exposure, make sure you are aware of where your supply chains cross borders, especially those associated with energy-intensive production.

Act: Take Informed, Decisive Action

It is in the interest of business to promote strong climate policy, both to insure against potentially disastrous long-term consequences and to support innovation and entrepreneurship. An informed analysis should include a full picture of potential policy impacts, including the costs of inaction. Economists agree that, in net present value terms, the costs of ignoring climate change are much worse than those expected to arise from mitigation efforts, such as short-term spikes in energy prices (which will be temporary as companies invest in low-carbon alternatives). Also, be wary of analyses that use overly simplistic calculations of policy costs to assess climate policy. If and when you do decide to influence Waxman-Markey’s undecided senators (PDF), you may be most influential if joining forces with existing groups, such as U.S. Climate Action Partnership or Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy — or by working with BSR and other players in the field to create other kinds of momentum.

Waxman-Markey in the U.S. Senate: Will It Pass?
Passing the Waxman-Markey bill through the U.S. Senate requires 60 votes, and as of early July, there were 45 supporters and 23 undecided voters, mostly industrial state Democrats and Republicans. Winning over the 15 voters needed to reach 60 will be no small task, and there are a number of perspectives on what it will take.According to U.S. climate expert Joseph Romm, the key is portraying the bill as the single most important vote that senators, who see themselves as historic figures, will ever cast. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says the solution is threefold: Obama must hit the speech trail, young people must organize public events, and ultimately Republicans must understand that conservation and conservatism are related.

In more practical terms, it will also help if flexibility is built into the bill, as was done to aid its passage in the U.S. House of Representatives. In addition, issues that go beyond cap-and-trade, such as nuclear energy and the potential impacts on agriculture, may need to be addressed.

In the end, the Senate is likely to be a more challenging environment for this bill than the House because rural voices, which so far have been un-supportive of cap-and-trade, are amplified. Also, given the highly partisan nature of the dialogue and rhetoric so far, Republicans may be wary of lending their support.

On the other hand, says Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), most senators are at least persuaded that the science is clear and requires a policy response. The political analysis website the Daily Kos has published a preliminary vote-by-vote assessment that predicts failure, so the one sure thing is that the next few months will be a difficult test of the political skills of Senate leaders and President Obama.

Companies with operations in China should take the time to share with employees, partners, and other members of the business community why climate change is material to your business, and the importance of the U.S. and China making joint commitments. You can help take a lead in transparency by supporting and joining a regional or national climate registry (PDF). Finally, given the upward price pressure of carbon-based energy, consider collaborative opportunities to work with facilities and suppliers to increase energy and carbon efficiency.

Increased awareness of the direction climate policy is headed in both the U.S. and China is beneficial for business planning, as changes in energy subsidies or incentives and cross-border emissions regulation all carry significant financial implications. Understanding the international dialogue and positioning by each side will help you predict upcoming regulatory shifts in both countries, and will create the opportunity for informed action to influence policy. As Waxman-Markey winds its way through the Senate en route to the White House, don’t lose sight of the effects this bill may have for your business far beyond U.S. borders.


First posted at GreenBiz.

Creating Systemic Change: Lessons from Responsible Labor

Just one decade ago, the public was appalled to learn that children were producing Nike’s soccer balls in Pakistan, and the company was swiftly targeted by numerous high-profile, antagonistic NGO campaigns. Since then, more companies have come under fire by NGOs publicizing alleged corporate social and environmental abuses. Yet Nike — along with a handful of other companies once perceived as symbolizing ethical problems from global outsourcing — has come to be
regarded as a sustainability pioneer. What could explain such a fundamental turnaround?

In response to the exposure of poor labor practices in their supply chains, Nike and other consumer product companies embarked on a series of supplier audits and corrective actions to turn the problems around. They made many incremental improvements, but over time reached a common and critical conclusion — that on their own, compliance and monitoring processes are insufficient for creating real, sustainable improvements.

It turned out that although Nike was singled out by many in the NGO and corporate social responsibility (CSR) community, the company was not the sole culprit, but rather a harbinger of a greater, system-wide failure. As companies like Nike began to address symptoms of child labor through auditing, it became clear that the problems were driven by more fundamental institutional causes, such as absent and ineffective public policies, perverse and contradictory incentives from multinational business customers to their suppliers, and employees that lacked the power to stand up for themselves, given their communities’ prevailing customs.

In this process, industry learned a key lesson: Systemic change requires that multinationals work with relevant stakeholders to understand the root causes of problems and address them strategically. To increase the impact of this lesson, BSR has created the Beyond Monitoring initiative, which encompasses a strategy for next-generation management of sustainable supply chains. Beyond Monitoring uses four pillars to achieve its goal:

1. Alignment of commercial and social objectives by brands
2. Ownership of this agenda by suppliers
3. Empowerment of workers
4. Engagement with policy and governments
Now, as industry faces increasingly complex challenges,

Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) has started thinking about how to apply the Beyond Monitoring framework to sustainability issues beyond supply chain labor conditions.  Perhaps even more so than labor, other sustainability issues such as climate change and freedom of expression are increasingly complex. It is our hypothesis that by addressing the complexity of the whole system, the Beyond Monitoring principles could strengthen a host of other sustainability initiatives. The following framework, based on the four key concepts of alignment, ownership, empowerment and engagement, aims to do just that for two areas of particular interest:
􀀝 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: in particular, reducing the impacts of supply chains.
􀀝 Privacy and freedom of expression: addressing the increasingly complex human rights problems faced by internet and telecommunications companies.

Alignment
In practice, aligning commercial and social objectives means bridging traditionally unrelated company teams and creating
consistent enterprise objectives and communications messages on sustainability.
􀀝 GHG emissions: For many companies, the primary driver of GHG emissions is energy use, which bears directly on costs. To encourage suppliers to undertake new energy investments and strategies, companies need to align the CSR and purchasing teams to give consistent and predictable messages about customer priorities.
􀀝 Privacy and freedom of expression: Three functions should align commercial objectives with human rights: 1. Technology and product design need to address the freedom of expression and privacy features and applications of the product. 2. Legal affairs needs to manage its relationship with law enforcement agencies consistent with human rights. 3. Sales and strategy need to consider human rights when deciding which markets to enter and which products and services to offer.

Ownership
Ownership means that all relevant actors identify a business case for “owning” their sustainability agenda, and they work with their partners in shaping shared objectives. With ownership, stakeholders are likely to make personal investments that support sustainability goals, and they are less likely to block progress.
􀀝 GHG emissions: Increasingly, companies are under pressure to disclose emissions. However, like many labor compliance disclosure requests during the past decade, emissions disclosure requests are often based on methodologies that were made without supplier input. As a result, suppliers resist for a number
of reasons: They don’t understand the request, they don’t know how to get the information or they don’t see the point. Instead, it’s important to work with suppliers to co-create protocols that make sense for everybody.
􀀝 Privacy and freedom of expression: In terms of ownership, the challenge is moving beyond large multinationals such as

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft. With so many startup companies emerging, progress is most likely if these companies are equipped to “own” their own approaches to privacy and
freedom of expression. The goal is to develop international standards that are widely understood and accepted by the hundreds of small and startup companies operating in markets all over the world, such as those providing services for blogging and user-generated content.

Empowerment
By ensuring that stakeholders understand their options for recourse and have channels for action that are consistent with existing incentives and worldviews, empowerment increases the likelihood of sustainability policies to be embraced and implemented.
􀀝 GHG emissions: In this context, there’s an opportunity to empower two constituencies. The first is workers, who are most likely to act if they are trained, given a mandate and provided resources to increase energy efficiency. Communities and the public, which are stakeholders in the context of climate change, comprise the second constituency. Help educate them about issues and help them act through direct and other measures, such as voting in elections or making product choices.
􀀝 Privacy and freedom of expression: It’s important to empower the user through transparency about the circumstances
in which personal information may be passed to governments or content may be restricted. Information empowers the user to make informed judgments about data privacy or the
completeness of the content being provided.

Engagement
Companies often work with governments to ensure the consistent and fair application of laws and regulations. This includes
strengthening policies that exist but are not yet fully implemented, and facilitating the development of appropriate new ones.
􀀝 GHG emissions: Companies have two key policy opportunities — participating in dialogue about standards, and engaging in discussions
about legislation. With respect to standards, companies can help develop new emissions reporting systems like the GHG Protocol’s guidance
on product and associated (“scope 3”) emissions, and the Carbon Disclosure Project’s treatment of suppliers with respect to reporting. Companies can also attempt to provide input on rule-making. For example, in the United States, members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership have been lobbying the U.S. Congress to begin phasing in regulation steadily and predictably.
􀀝 Privacy and freedom of expression: Often, when it comes to violations of privacy and freedom of expression, government is the main cause, and companies have limited room
to maneuver. However, companies can take action, such as advocating government approaches that are consistent with international human rights laws and standards on freedom of expression and privacy, and challenging governments when human rights standards or local law are not applied. They can also help educate and build capacity in governments of emerging economies.  At its heart, the sustainability challenge is characterized by common systems problems, and there is a wealth of knowledge
to build from. Sustainability practitioners owe it to their cause to make sure that they are thinking in terms of systems, and collaborating with each other. We believe the lessons from BSR’s Beyond Monitoring framework will help companies do just that.

Originally published by BSR.

A-B-C-Design: Engaging the Whole Company in Developing Sustainable Products

Given the sheer number of items we purchase, use and throw away every year, it’s no surprise that consumer products are the ultimate drivers of carbon emissions. In that context, product design is critical for addressing climate change. As the concentration point for a large set of decisions about human and material resource flows, product design can influence emissions throughout the value chain, with the potential to yield significant results: According to the U.K.-based Climate Group, during the next decade, developments to information and communication technology products alone could reduce global GHG emissions by 15 percent, while saving the industry more than $900 billion. 

Ironically, the shortest path to better products is often found not inside the design team, but throughout the rest of the company.

At Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), we worked with the design and innovation firm IDEO to produce the report “Aligned for Sustainable Design: An A-B-C-D Approach to Making Better Products,” [PDF] which shows that sustainability introduces a range of factors into organizations that require the engagement of people throughout the company. Indeed, the real bottleneck to design problems is often low organizational capacity. Rather than looking to the designer to lead product sustainability strategies, managers need to coordinate conventionally unconnected parts of the organization and promote dynamic organizational learning.

The four main ways to do this can be described as the A-B-C-Ds of sustainable design:

A: Assess the climate impacts of your company’s projects and evaluate your organization’s capacity to address these impacts. Some companies, like Sony and Philips, do this by pursuing formal lifecycle analyses and materials assessments of their products in order to ensure that they understand where impacts really come from. Others, like Intel, also focus on understanding the impacts of first-tier suppliers. Still other companies are experimenting with new methodologies entirely: BT, for example, has developed a “Climate Stability Intensity” method that conveys the company’s global emissions normalized by expected atmospheric levels needed for climate stability.

B: Bridge functions and people needed for making valuable, tractable product redesigns. Often, this means making unconventional cases for commitments and resources. For example, Procter & Gamble, recognizing that energy-efficiency projects have important benefits that outweigh traditional return-on-investment hurdles, has bridged sustainability and finance by earmarking 5 percent of its budget ($5 million) for energy-saving projects. Hewlett-Packard has developed an energy supply chain function, which creates a formal, cross-functional bridge between traditional procurement and environmental responsibility teams.

Three Approaches to Sustainable Design
Given the demand for greener products, many companies are incorporating sustainable design into everything from cars to computers. They are employing three main approaches to designing low-emissions products:
• Reducing lifecycle emissions in existing products through new design specifications and features: Toyota has started equipping its hybrid electric car, the Prius, with rooftop solar panels that power the air-conditioner, and companies with energy-using products like HP and Dell are developing better power-saving and idle modes. Even companies with products that don’t use energy are designing specifications for lower-impact maintenance and disposal. Apparel companies, for example, are providing cold-water wash instructions for clothing.
• Linking existing products to restoration: Tyson is eliminating emissions from waste by turning animal byproducts into biofuel. Other companies, like Nissan, are linking products with restoration by automatically buying carbon offsets with automobile purchases.
• Deploying new product and service concepts: With videoconferencing, companies such as Cisco and Skype are fulfilling the need for live communication with an alternative to emissions-intensive air travel. Other companies have focused their business plans around products aimed at saving emissions: One such business is Liftshare.org which uses a simple database platform to bring people and organizations together to carpool.

C: Create internal and external learning projects that enhance knowledge of product sustainability and support necessary changes in the design process. Nike, for example, has launched a number of projects, such as one that reduces production scrap and diverts worn-out shoes from disposal, and another that phases out industrial greenhouse gases from the bladders of shoes’ air soles. It also remotely monitors the energy efficiency of its suppliers. Marks and Spencer has launched a range of projects, including one aimed at in-store energy reduction, another to source food regionally and label food transported by air freight. Another program targets consumers with educational and inspirational messages.

D: Diffuse lessons and accountability mechanisms that build sustainability literacy and affect better decision-making throughout the organization. This puts information in the hands of the right people at the right time, and creates accountability for product outcomes. Wal-Mart, North America’s largest private user of electricity, has developed a comprehensive, companywide sustainability mandate with six broad priorities and 14 cross-functional teams. As part of the effort, Wal-Mart uses what it calls “Personal Sustainability Projects” to train employees on ways to incorporate sustainability into their lives. Toyota has a number of initiatives to diffuse sustainability lessons: It formally mandates environmental action in its “Earth Charter,” it is developing local systems that streamline complex ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 methods in North American facilities, and the company uses green supplier guidelines that emphasize collaboration.

To enhance product sustainability, more consumers and policymakers are pushing companies to reduce carbon emissions throughout their value chains. Remember the cardinal rule: The crux of sustainable product design is generally not found within the design team, but rather in the information flow throughout the rest of the company.

First posted at GreenBiz.