Tag Archives: sustainability

Meet the Change Makers: How UPS Delivers Big Energy Savings | OnEarth

For UPS, the world’s largest package delivery company, no time of year is more challenging than the holiday season. This year, the Atlanta-based company predicts the surge of packages it handles between Thanksgiving and Christmas will exceed half a billion. That tidal wave will peak on December 20 when, on a single day, some 28 million cardboard boxes will be loaded into UPS’s iconic big brown trucks to be delivered, at a rate of roughly 300 per second, to homes and businesses around the world.

The challenge of getting those packages where they need to be using the least amount of energy possible falls to Scott Wicker, who was named UPS’s first chief sustainability officer in 2011. Like many of UPS’s top execs, Wicker is a lifer. He got his start in 1977 unloading UPS trucks while studying to become an electrical engineer. Some three decades later, it’s fair to say Wicker is still working in trucks. Yet today, as CSO, his mandate is to improve the efficiency of UPS’s entire fleet of 93,000-plus vehicles – which includes those brown vans, long-haul trucks, and cargo planes as well as gondolas and tricycles — along with the company’s global portfolio of more than 1,800 facilities.

True to his engineering roots, Wicker approaches this challenge quantitatively. Given that fueling the UPS armada generates more than 90 percent of the company’s carbon emissions, much of UPS’s sustainability efforts focus on its fleet, such as streamlining delivery operations, developing fuel-efficient technologies, and exploring alternative fuels. In 2011, those efforts helped reduce company-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 3.5 percent, even though total package volume grew by 1.8 percent, according to a 2011 report.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston spoke with Wicker about how UPS has achieved these gains and become one of its industry’s top performers on sustainability.

If there’s a singular example of UPS’s focus on efficiency, it’s the left-hand turn rule in which delivery routes are designed for drivers to make as few lefts as possible. How did this come about?

It’s one of a long list of tweaks we’ve been making to drivers’ routes over the years. It goes back to the ‘70s. Back then, we saw that we were wasting a lot of time making left turns. The more time a van sits waiting to turn, the more fuel is burned idling.

Can you quantify the benefits of the rule?

Partly. It’s part of a broader set of efforts to eliminate idling. Last year we avoided 98 million minutes of idling. And less idling means less fuel burned. We estimate that this effort alone saved 653,000 gallons of fuel.

So fuel efficiency is as much about how vehicles are driven, as what fuel they use or how the vehicle is designed?

Yes, some of the biggest changes to our fleet operations are the least visible. Last year, for example, we estimate we avoided driving nearly 90 million miles thanks to improvements in routing and package-flow technologies. That translates into more than 8 million gallons of fuel not burned. Our technologies determine how to load each package and where each one goes on a specific shelf in the truck.

We’re also developing the ability to adjust routing on the fly. If the driver has to veer off a route for any reason, the system can recalculate the optimal delivery sequence. Further, the system will help the driver to mix more urgent, early-morning deliveries in between less urgent deliveries with later time commitments. In the past, this hasn’t been possible — instead, all urgent packages are delivered first, regardless of lost opportunities to deliver another package nearby.

It may sound minor, but these changes can help reduce the number of miles each driver travels each day. When you multiply a few miles saved per driver per day, the aggregated savings in time, fuel, and carbon are significant.

That said, is the push for a high-mileage truck still a top priority?

Yes. With more than 90,000 vehicles, it’s a constant concern. Our fleet of alternative-fueled vehicles is the largest in the industry, and one of the most diverse. Since 2000, some 2,500 unconventional UPS vehicles have racked up over 200 million miles in service.

Many are powered by natural gas, which we’re looking to as an alternative to diesel. For example, more than 900 local delivery vans are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) in the U.S., and almost that many vehicles in Canada are powered by propane [a close relative of natural gas]. For long distances, we also have about 59 big rigs — highway tractor-trailers — powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Rounding out the alternative fleet are 381 hybrid electric models that, similar to Toyota’s Prius, use a combination of combustion, electric motors, and battery storage to boost mileage. Because they recapture so much of their energy through regenerative braking, these models are especially well-suited to urban routes, where total miles travelled is short, with many stops and starts, and pollution control is important. We’re also running a small number of ethanol-powered vehicles and pure electric vehicles, which run solely on power stored in their batteries.

We’re also excited to announce that starting this month, we’re rolling out 40 hydraulic hybrid delivery vehicles. This is a continuation of a program we piloted with the Department of Energy and other partners in 2006. Instead of storing energy in a conventional battery, these vehicles use hydraulic fluid as the storage medium. When the vehicle accelerates, some of this stored pressure helps it to start moving. During braking, the process works in reverse: the vehicle’s momentum is converted into pressure to recharge the hydraulic tanks. It’s a remarkably rugged system that can save up to 40 percent of fuel.

Why pursue so many kinds of technology?

We’d like to get off of fossil fuels. That’s our goal. Our approach is holistic because there is no silver bullet. It would be foolish to try to predict which fuel will emerge as the best or most durable.

Can you squeeze greater savings from your conventional diesel trucks?

Yes. One of the things we’re most excited about is “lightweighting.” Last year, we rolled out a test truck that looks similar to our regular delivery van, but that’s built with advanced materials that shave off 900 pounds. There are body panels made of lightweight plastic composites instead of metal sheets. Because the vehicle is so much lighter, we’re able to use a smaller engine, as well.

The trucks deliver approximately 40 percent gains in fuel efficiency, and the price is in line with the cost of a conventional vehicle. Based on that trial, we ordered 150 of these higher-mileage models. We’re also more comfortable with composite material and will consider adding more composite components into larger vehicle types.

UPS operates a lot of vehicles consumers rarely see, from planes to long-haul trucks. What are you doing with these?

To put this in perspective, more than half of UPS’s carbon dioxide emissions come from jet fuel, and the rest of our mobile fleet make up about a third of emissions.

For surface transportation, we shift as much as possible to rail, which is a far more efficient way to move goods than road. For rail and air, the efficiency options are fewer than on the road. With planes, we’re testing more efficient flight paths. Simplifying a jet’s landing pattern, by letting it glide down continuously rather than descending in a step pattern, delivers substantial savings. We’re also testing aviation biofuel. We know it works. The problem is making it at the right price.

Are your customers asking for data on the carbon impact of their shipping?

Customers began to push for this kind of data a few years ago. Big companies are facing more pressure from groups like the Carbon Disclosure Project, the federal government, and financial entities to report on their carbon footprints.

It’s been a challenge to build a system that collects all this data. But today, we’re one of the few logistics providers that calculate Scope 3 emissions, which often comprise a very large share of the total. These are the emissions produced indirectly to make goods or deliver services a company buys. [Ed. note: Scope 1 emissions are created from direct actions, such as fueling a UPS truck. Scope 2 are emitted indirectly, such as the emissions associated with electricity bought by a UPS utility. Find out more here.]

When we ship for a company, or handle its logistics, UPS becomes a major source of the company’s Scope 3 emissions. Delivering that data reliably is a very sophisticated process. Our experience developing these measures has helped us advise partners on their efforts to map out their own Scope 3 emissions, too.

Have UPS’s sustainability efforts helped attract customers?

Yes. UPS is the only U.S.-based company offering a carbon neutral shipping option across all product lines. Puma, for example, ships everything carbon neutral. Toto [a Japanese bathroom fixture maker] uses the service, too. Another example is LiveNation, which organizes touring bands. We ship of all the bands’ gears in our trucks, and, in some cases, have begun to manage transport for those tours in a carbon neutral manner.

~

Originally published at http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-how-ups-delivers-big-energy-savings

Meet the Change Makers: AEG Turns Up the Volume on Sustainability | OnEarth

You may not know AEG Worldwide, but odds are good that you’ve spent an evening in one of the company’s many venues, rooting for the home team or lip-syncing a favorite song. AEG operates and often owns some of the world’s largest stadiums, concert halls, and other entertainment sites, including L.A.’s Staples Center and the newBarclays Center in Brooklyn, where the Nets will soon relocate. The company’s portfolio also includes London’s O2 Arena, a hub for the 2012 Olympic Games. Off the field, there’s no bigger player in sports than AEG — which made the company a natural target for environmental advocates seeking a high-profile partner in efforts to “green” pro sports.

Worldwide, the sports and entertainment industry’s environmental impact is huge. Yet it has historically been made up mostly of small-scale players — each running just a handful of venues — so the shift toward environmentally friendly practices has happened more slowly than in other sectors, which could be influenced by just one or two big companies going green. Back in 2007, AEG’s footprint included just seven venues. Since then, backed by billionaire-owner Philip Anschutz, CEO Tim Leiweke has rapidly expanded the scale and diversity of the company’s activities. Today AEG manages and/or services more than 110 venues on five continents and owns a share of 10 pro teams that play in its arenas, including the NBA’s fabled Lakers. And the company ranks as the second-largest event promoter in the United States., backing events such as the massive Coachella music festival.

Given AEG’s size, its global sustainability director, Jennifer Regan, has unprecedented influence over the greening of the sports and entertainment industry. Regan joined the company fresh out of college in 2007 and has risen to become its senior-most executive focused on green issues. Her team started out looking at energy use at a small number of the company’s sites but has steadily expanded its focus to include more venues and more complex measures of consumption. In 2010, AEG published the industry’s first sustainability report and debuted a green strategy known as AEG 1Earth. An update is due by year-end.OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently caught up with Regan following her visit to the White House for a ceremony celebrating the greening of professional sports.

Twenty-six is young to be leading the green efforts at a major company. How did you get there?

I had the perfect mix of entertainment and environmental background, but the decision to really dedicate myself to corporate sustainability took shape before my junior year. I spent that summer in Senegal at the National University Cheikh Anta Diop where I studied sustainable development. On the last day of class, I had one of those life-changing moments. The professor stood me up in front of hundreds of local students and said:

You’re here because you want to learn how to do sustainable development. But what you need to recognize is there is no such thing. The only regions around the world being developed sustainably are places where wealthy nations are extracting natural resources. If you care about reducing environmental damage, start by changing business practices back home.

That message made me question what the heck I was doing in Senegal. I realized that I had much greater opportunity to affect change back home by addressing unsustainable business practices. I returned to the U.S. and redirected my studies toward issues around corporate sustainability.

Your timing turned out to be very good to join AEG’s emerging sustainability efforts. How did you make your way there?

I started looking for a corporate sustainability position after graduation. I expected I’d have to start in a position outside of sustainability and then weave those values into my role. Given my background in theater and production, I was looking at AEG for event management jobs and hoped to bring sustainability into the AEG culture.

At the time my mother was AEG’s vice president of information technology. She was helping me consider entry-level opportunities. Out of the blue, her supervisor mentioned that the CEO, Tim Leiweke, had asked for help to understand how to “make AEG green.” My mom suggested to her boss that he and I speak so that I might give him some pointers regarding first steps.

How much did you have to sell the idea?

The thinking on these areas was already taking shape. Executives were increasingly hearing from AEG’s partners — artists, promoters, athletes, sponsors, governing bodies, and civic groups — that the company needed to find better ways to address the environment. I gave a very aggressive speech on the difference between greenwashing and being truly sustainable, and provided a list of links on sustainability practices. Then I went on to travel. I wasn’t thinking that what just happened was kind of a job interview.

About ten days later, I got an email from AEG saying, “We could really use your support,” and asking if I’d be interested in a two-month engagement to help coordinate a management committee to map out the start of a formal sustainability program for AEG. I was so excited that I cancelled my trip and headed straight back to L.A.

So this was the beginning of AEG’s major push into sustainability?

Yes. In two months, we put together a 120-page report that included ten pages of detailed tasks for each major division of AEG. We presented the report to AEG’s chairman, Philip Anschutz, and to Leiweke. They reviewed it and said, “This is exactly the right direction for the company.”

Mr. Anschutz made it clear to us that energy was his number-one priority. After labor, energy is AEG’s highest cost, and energy prices were near all-time highs. So it offered quick and potentially big savings. He also wanted us to focus on venues we owned and operated. They asked me to stay on as a contractor to begin implementation. About a year later, after the program had a couple of strong wins, they offered me a full-time position as sustainability manager.

What were your biggest obstacles rolling out this program?

AEG’s biggest challenge — and biggest opportunity — is our scale and diverse business model. We have so many different business segments: facilities, concerts, sports, live entertainment, and others. Our venues range from intimate clubs that seat as few as 500 to large stadia and entire “entertainment districts” able to hold up to 115,000. Each of these venues is a different age, with different geographical and climate challenges, varying energy grids, and different municipal infrastructures.

So our first priority was to better understand what was already in place and develop a measurement and reporting program that could identify energy-savings opportunities and monitor their progress across a diverse range of venues.

When you looked at energy use, what did you find?

Initially, we did a few energy audits and site audits at a cross section of venues to identify energy projects that might translate across the portfolio. We quickly realized that there were opportunities around utility bill management and energy procurement.

Two years later, in 2010, we partnered with Summit Energy [of Louisville, Ky.] to develop a global energy strategy for AEG. They helped us identify cost-saving opportunities through rate adjustment and billing accuracy, as well as opportunities to procure energy in open market. They provided software to track and analyze electricity, water, and natural gas use as an extension of their invoicing, bill payment, and carbon accounting services.

You set some ambitious goals. How’s it going?

Until we publish an update to our sustainability report later this year, I can’t be too specific about company-wide achievements. But, we are making major progress toward our targets for 2020, compared with 2007, in the area of energy, waste, and responsible sourcing. These goals include cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 percent and achieving 75 percent waste diversion at ten focus venues and events.

Also, where we have direct control over purchasing, we’re aiming to spend half of our budget on what we call “high-impact” goods — those that have the greatest direct impact on human health and the environment — including more efficient lighting, greener janitorial products, high-performance cooling and heating systems, and recycled paper products.

What are some specific examples of AEG’s resource savings?

Right out of the gate, we identified opportunities for high-returns. In 2008, for instance, we installed solar panels at both the Staples Center and Nokia Theater in L.A., saving an average of $55,000 annually. The same year, we retrofitted about 500 urinals to be waterless at all of our Southern California venues. They are saving us more than 20 million gallons of water and some $70,000 in direct water costs each year.

A rule of thumb in sustainability is to eliminate waste first, then substitute green alternatives. How are you approaching this?

We think our staff’s ability to manage buildings more efficiently through small day-to-day tweaks is where we’re really going to make progress. For example, in 2010, through staff training and constant vigilance, we reduced their electricity usage by 30 percent and natural gas consumption by more than half atCitizens Business Bank Arena in Ontario, Calif.

Much of this challenge amounts to motivating staff to change long-standing habits. How do you do it?

The first step is to get them to understand the materials within their facility and their importance.

Take my battery bucket challenge. I’ve had a lot of operations managers tell me, “Sure we collect disposable batteries in our office but there are just not that many.” And I’d say, “I’m going to issue you a challenge. Put a battery bucket in three places where you don’t think there are batteries. Send out an email letting staff know about the new collection points. And let’s bet on how long it will take for that bucket to fill up.” They’ll say, “Oh, it’ll take a year.” It takes one, maybe two weeks, so I’ve won every time.

The second step is to work with them to help identify sustainable solutions.

How do you tackle those who are most resistant to change?

When it comes to sustainability, I think of my colleagues as fitting into three major categories.

There’s one group making decisions because they want to be recognized but also because the decision is in line with their values. Those are the one who are most supportive and easy to work with.

And then there are those focused strictly on success as defined by their job description and who do not necessarily value sustainability personally. These types aren’t necessarily embracing sustainability, but if it’s expected of them, they will get the job done.

Lastly, there’s the complete naysayer: the individual who disagrees with the philosophy of sustainability and doesn’t think human action adversely impacts the environment. They are only able to see results or conclusions that support their belief that the environment doesn’t need our stewardship. Even when we can prove that they’re going to save money, they’ll sometimes still find ways to say no. That’s where the high-level support has been so important: since the owner and CEO said make it so, this attitude simply is no longer acceptable.

~

TRUTH SQUAD Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Influence often comes with experience. Yet, in the relatively young world of corporate sustainability, youthful energy can help catalyze change in large, slow-to-evolve organizations. AEG’s global sustainability director is a case in point. At 26, “Jen Regan is among the best arena greeners on the planet,” says Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which publishes OnEarth.

Hershkowitz has spent the past decade coordinating some of NRDC’s most prominent institutional sustainability initiatives, spanning entertainment — such as the Academy and Grammy Awards — and professional sports, including national league-wide efforts to green baseball, basketball, football, and the U.S. Tennis Association.

As the world’s largest operator of major sporting venues, AEG has unparalleled resources to develop green practices, Hershkowitz says. For example, in Los Angeles, the company hopes to build an NFL stadium dubbed Farmers Field, planned as one of the most environmentally sustainable stadiums in the world, as well as the NFL’s first LEED-certified field. AEG has even pledged to make the facility carbon neutral in part by steering more fans onto public transit. In a notoriously car-crazed city, it’s an audacious goal.

AEG’s bid is typical of how its sustainability push has heated up a green race among teams and sports leagues, says Hershkowitz. “These owners are really competitive,” he says. “Each season, it seems like a different owner is trying to out-green previous efforts.”

The company’s green agenda extends beyond sports venues, but to Hershkowitz, sports is a particularly potent industry in which to promote sustainability practices. “Just 13 percent of Americans follow science, but 61 percent follow sports. If we can move things there environmentally, its popularity opens the door to much broader change at the political level.”

For all of AEG’s progress, there’s still plenty to focus on, Hershkowitz says. The company needs to extend its reach to smaller sites and deepen its influence over operations into new areas. For instance, AEG can work with independent and in-house vendors — which provide everything from popcorn to white-linen restaurant meals — to shift them to use more sustainable materials and even offer healthier foods, he says. — Adam Aston

~

Check out the original here: http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-aeg-turns-up-volume-on-sustainability

Philly Mayor Michael Nutter puts his city on a greener path | Corporate Knights

Michael Nutter couldn’t have picked a worse time to win the keys to city hall. In late 2007, after 14 years as a city councilman, Nutter was elected as Philadelphia’s 125th mayor. His victory was built in part on a campaign promise to make his town in Pennsylvania “the greenest city in America.”

Yet mere months after he took office, Wall Street imploded, sparking global financial crisis and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Philadelphia’s fiscal outlook plummeted from surplus to billions in deficit, leaving Nutter facing painful choices.

Rather than retreat on his green agenda, however, Nutter looked to sustainability to help right the city’s finances. In 2009, he unveiled Greenworks Philadelphia, an ambitious blueprint to help the city run more efficiently, with less pollution, and become healthier all while using less energy and money to do so. “Cities are incubators of innovation,” said Nutter in an interview with Corporate Knights. “Congress can’t figure out energy or climate policy. Breaking new ground is happening at the city level because this is where it has to.”

Philadelphia’s eco-planners developed the program by auditing a vast array of urban metrics – from the amount residents walked to the availability of fresh, whole food. Then, they cast the data into the future, assessing how the city might look if “business as usual” continued. Finally, they combed through the numbers to set tough but achievable goals touching on dozen of actions. The final report organized the targets under 15 broad categories.

As an integrated vision for urban sustainability, Greenworks won plaudits for its unusually ambitious timeline. When it comes to energy or climate goals, it’s not unusual for governments to set targets a decade or more into the future. But distant goals can erode political will, Nutter notes, so his team agreed to peg the bulk of the plan’s targets to 2015.

Three years in, the results are showing up on Philadelphia’s city streets, and on its bottom line. Some of the programs are helping the city’s day-to-day operating budget. Consider recycling: The city saw rates soar to 18.9 per cent in 2011, more than triple the benchmark rate of 5.4 per cent in 2006.

The city made recycling both easier and more rewarding. Recycling days were shifted to the same day as regular garbage pickup and doubled in frequency. The city also eased the sorting hassle by expanding the types of plastic that could be recycled to numbers 1 through 7. Most U.S. cities accept just a few of those types.

The shift is turning a cost into a revenue source. Each ton of trash diverted to recycling bins not only saves about $68 in landfill costs, it generates more than $50 from the sale of bulk recycling material.

Other efforts promise to deliver huge, long-term capital savings. For example, Philadelphia was facing a $10-billion tab for new sewage facilities to prevent storm water from tainting regional waterways. Instead of a costly infrastructure fix, though, the city is spending $2 billion over 25 years on a multifaceted solution that restores the urban landscape’s ability to absorb rainfall.

Additional trees, parks and urban green space, all of which act as natural sponges, top the city’s to-do list. For buildings, the tricks include rain barrels and green roofs to collect and hold rainfall. The city is building out permeable road surfaces that let drops of rain soak slowly into the ground, rather than race down to storm sewers. “We recognized we could save money, not dig up half the town, and improve our parks and green spaces,” says Nutter.

The mayor’s green team tapped private partners to help multiply public efforts. To help cut citywide energy use, city programs aim to reinsulate homes and recoat black-tar roofs – which become oven-like hotspots in the summer – with cool, reflective white coatings. To spark homeowners’ competitive impulse, the city teamed up with Dow Chemical on the “Coolest Block” contest. Residents competed to win energy-saving cool roofs, insulation and other efficiency upgrades donated by Dow to their entire block. Said the mayor: “We can’t do this alone.”

For Nutter, the city’s green programs are delivering growing rewards, too. Philadelphia closed a multi-billion dollar budget gap as Greenworks took root. In its 2011 self-assessment, the city found that 135 of its initial 151 green goals have been completed or are underway. That quick success, Nutter says, has fired ambitions, spurring the addition of dozens more new eco-goals.

Perhaps the greatest measure of success for Nutter is re-election. He won a second term in November, assuring he’ll be there to push Greenworks through its 2015 deadline, and beyond.

See the original story here: http://www.corporateknights.com/report/2012-greenest-cities-america/philly-mayor-michael-nutter-puts-his-city-greener-path

Meet the Change Makers: Starbucks’s Quest for a Better Cup | OnEarth

Starbucks didn’t invent the disposable coffee cup, but few other brands are as tightly married to their container. From Brooklyn to Bangkok, the Seattle-based roaster’s white cups are instantly identifiable. More than four billion containers crossed the company’s counters last year, and only a small percentage were recycled.

The person charged with finding a way to increase that share is Jim Hanna, Starbucks’s director of environmental impact. He joined the company in 2006 and has tackled a host of issues, from improving coffee farming, harvesting, and processing techniques to greening the chain’s 17,000-plus stores. He has a lot of success to show for those efforts: Starbucks hit its goal of buying half of all the energy for its North American stores from renewable sources in 2010, years ahead of schedule, for example. But cups, especially the amount of virgin paper they consume, are proving to be one of his greatest challenges.

The company is tackling the problem with its own version of the three R’s: recycling, reuse, and reinvention. Starbucks has piloted recycling efforts city-by-city, working out kinks with trash haulers and paper mills. It has run a nationwide contest to design better reusable mugs. And it has worked to share its findings with the industry, bringing together McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts, for example, at a series of Cup Summits. But the heat is on. Starbucks has pledged to have cup recycling available in all of its North American outlets by 2015. Modest as this target may sound, it requires that Starbucks more or less remake the paper recycling business.

Hanna, 43, holds a degree in environmental science and has worked in environmental consulting. He says the long-term costs of corporate inaction on pressing environmental issues can be enormous, which is why Starbucks’s hunt for the perfect cup is a voluntary, but critical, initiative. By moving aggressively, the company hopes to win and retain customers, boost employee morale, and maybe even outflank competitors. On March 21, Starbucks released its2011 Global Responsibility Report, documenting both its progress and ongoing challenges. Recycling efforts made gains: the share of North American stores that can recycle hot cups has more than tripled since 2010 to 18 percent. Yet the push to avoid paper use, by spurring more consumers to use tumblers or in-store ceramic mugs, saw almost no improvement.

Hannah spoke with OnEarth’s Adam Aston about Starbucks’s successes and its struggles to solve the coffee cup problem.

What steps has Starbucks taken to lower paper use? It wasn’t so long ago that Styrofoam was the standard.

Our effort goes back to the company’s earliest days, in the 1980s. There was a period, for instance, during which customers would always get two cups to prevent them from burning their fingers. In late 1990s, we introduced the sleeve, which is made of Kraft paper. It is made from recycled content, plus it uses far less material than a whole cup. And because it doesn’t touch the beverage, it can be more easily recycled.

Why not make the whole cup out of that material?

This is where you see how the business side of the paper industry, as well as food safety rules, really complicate this challenge. It is possible to make cups out of unbleached Kraft paper, but there are a couple of limitations. First, most Kraft paper is made from recycled content and, to maintain consumer safety, the Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of post-consumer recycled paper in packaging that comes into contact with food.

Second, whatever sort of paper you use, it has to be made waterproof by lining it with another material. Wax is used in some food applications. Along with most of our competitors, we use a thin lining of food-grade polyethylene plastic.

I’m guessing that the plastic lining complicates the recycling process?

To recycle beverage cups, the cups have to be ground up. From that pulp, the plastic lining is separated using a combination of mechanical force and heat. All of this adds complexity, and cost, to the recycling process. If a paper mill has a cheaper source of fiber — one that demands less processing — it is not going to want beverage cups. And paper mills vary wildly in their abilities. Some are six months old and can handle a wide variety of materials; others are a century old and are easily gummed up by impurities like plastic. So if Seattle, say, has a modern paper mill, you may be able to recycle cups, but if New York has an older mill, or no mill, you can’t.

Working with GlobalGreen [a sustainability focused non-profit established by Mikhail Gorbachev], we ran a trial in Manhattan in 2010, sending poly-coated paper cups from a number of stores to a paper mill on Staten Island. We had mixed results: When we introduced the cups, they generated more unusable byproduct and really slowed down the mill’s processes. When we ended the trial, we had learned a lot. But we’re still looking for paper mills near New York. In other cities, we’re seeing more promising results, and in time we hope to copy and adapt those success stories elsewhere.

This suggests there are a lot of economic factors driving what can be recycled.

Yeah, the New York City pilot illustrates this point. Quite often, it’s not strictly a question of whether the process is possible, but whether there’s enough economic incentive for various parties to take on the challenge. That’s why our challenge is not only to come up with a better recipe to make the cups more easily recyclable, but also to help develop viable markets for the resulting paper.

Where are you having success with these trials?

In Chicago, we’re doing a test where we’re sending all of our paper cups to a mill in Wisconsin that makes our napkins. So the cups come back as another Starbucks product. We’d like to scale that up and test it out elsewhere. We’ve also got an industry group, the Food Services Packaging Institute, to take on this effort. By doing that, it evolves from being a Starbucks-centric project to an industry-led initiative with a much bigger potential for change.

And recycled paper can’t be used to make new cups again, right?

The FDA has rules strictly controlling the use of recycled materials in food-grade containers. The idea is to prevent impurities or disease that could sicken the public. But it dates back to a period when waste handling and paper processing technology was less advanced. Starbucks started working with the FDA about 10 years ago. We were able to make a case to use recycled paper in our coffee cups by showing that the mills we were working with could consistently make sanitary recycled containers. In 2006, we got the FDA to OK a cup with 10 percent recycled content, and that’s been our standard ever since. Ten percent may not sound like a lot, but it was a big step. Given the billions of cups we use, it saves a lot of trees from the mill.

That leads to another solution you’ve tried: getting customers to use fewer cups in the first place, especially since so many of them carry their cups out the door, rather than drinking and discarding them in stores where your recycling receptacles would be located. Yet the share of beverages you sell in reusable containers, such as tumblers that customers bring in, is surprisingly small: just 1.9 percent in 2011. That amounts to a savings of about 34 million cups, but the rate has been growing very slowly. What makes this such a challenge?

It’s harder to shift customer preferences than you might expect. We’ve always sold reusable mugs. And we offer customers a 10 cent discount if they use a tumbler. That’s more than the unit cost of a paper cup. Yet, in practice, we see that people value the convenience of having a cup when they want it and may not always want the hassle of handling and cleaning a tumbler.

Consumers are famously fickle. Attachment to plastic bags and plastic water bottles lingered for years before efforts to get rid of them caught fire. How are you trying to spark these changes?

We’re exploring many approaches to help consumers opt for alternatives to paper cups. In 2010, for instance, we ran a contest. Called the Betacup Challenge, entrants included everything from better designs for collapsible cups [such as the Cupup] to fully biodegradable designs [such as the Betacup]. The finalists stood out by including social networking and reward features that help shift behaviors. The Karma Cup, which was the overall winner, encourages customers to bring in reusable mugs by offering rewards and public recognition of the benefits of doing do. But when we tried some of these techniques out at a Seattle test store, we found there was less enthusiasm than we had seen in the online community.

We’ve increased our focus on shaping behaviors as a way to lower cup use. For example, this year we’re working to redesign stores to make ceramic wear more visible to customers, by positioning it in sight, right behind the baristas. Customers who want to enjoy their drink in the store will be reminded that they can do so in a ceramic mug that we wash and re-use. This is something that’s widely available today, but opted for less often than we’d like.

Are others in the industry collaborating with you on this challenge?

Yes. Big as we are, Starbucks still accounts for a tiny share of the 500 billion or so cups used industry-wide every year. So we’ve convened three “Cup Summits,” the first in Seattle, and the others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to bring together manufacturers, government officials and retailers — including our competitors — to devise solutions that have the potential to shift the industry.

~

TRUTH SQUAD — Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Starbucks got America hooked on Venti lattes. The problem, as NRDC’s Darby Hoovers sees it, is that we’re also hooked on the paper cups they come in. To lower its paper consumption, the coffee chain’s most effective option is to steer customers toward reusable cups, saysHoover, a senior resource specialist in NRDC’s San Francisco office.

Easier said than done, though, she acknowledges. “The reality is that Starbucks is working in a disposable culture,” says Hoover, in which consumers’ habits are tough to change. Accordingly, the coffee chain is focusing its efforts on recycling. By 2015, it has pledged to make front-of-store recycling available in all of its company-owned stores in North America.

But it’s not as simple as putting out more recycling bins. Although, technically, a growing share of recyclers can handle the challenge of processing the plastic-lined cups, a small amount of plastic can downgrade a batch of recycled paper, making it harder to process and less valuable, Hoover explains. So Starbucks has been working with select mills to improve the economics of the venture. In its Chicago stores, for example, it buys back napkins made from the paper that is recycled from used cups. The efforts are bearing fruit. During 2011, Starbucks extended the availability of in-store recycling for cups to more than 1,000 stores, largely in Canada, Chicago, and southern California, more than tripling the count from the prior year.

Starbucks’ most important role could be as an industry leader, Hoover says. If the company hits its 2015 cup recycling goal, it may trigger wider change throughout the restaurant industry. — Adam Aston

Peas on Earth: How PepsiCo is aiding Ethiopia’s chickpea farmers to secure its supply chain | Ensia

Say “Pepsi” and most folks think of the nose-tickling cola that has been Coke’s archrival for over a century. Or chips: About half of PepsiCo’s $58 billion in yearly sales comes from snack foods such as Lay’s and Doritos.

But chickpeas? Also known as garbanzo beans, the protein-rich legumes are a key ingredient in hummus, one of PepsiCo’s fastest-growing products. In 2007, the food and beverage giant inked a joint venture with Israel’s Strauss Group to sell Sabra-brand hummus and other foods in North America. Led by demand for the garlicky blend of chickpeas, olive oil and sesame, PepsiCo’s sales of dips in its Sabra line soared by 45 percent in 2010. In early 2011, the partners agreed to extend the deal to sell Sabra hummus and other spreads globally.

This lip-smacking growth gives PepsiCo a new challenge: How to secure a steady supply of chickpeas. In 2012, the company expects to buy several thousand tons; two years later, the shopping list calls for roughly twice that amount.

To help meet this need, PepsiCo is combining its business agenda with the development goal of helping 10,000 Ethiopian farmers double their production of chickpeas in a program it’s calling Enterprise EthioPEA. “This initiative will positively impact the livelihood of local farmers, address the critical issue of famine in the Horn of Africa and create sustainable business opportunities for PepsiCo,” said Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo in a statement.

The strategy is as unconventional as it ambitious. After all, Ethiopia is better known for famine than for food export. Enterprise EthioPEA aims to reverse that condition by bringing together international partners with local stakeholders. From overseas, PepsiCo, the United Nations World Food Programme and the U.S. Agency for International Development are joining forces. Within the country, the effort is led by the Ethiopian Institute for Agriculture Research, the Ministry of Agriculture and Omega Farms.

For Ethiopia, where half of all kids are stunted by malnutrition, chickpeas offer a familiar but underexploited dietary option, explains Tara Acharya, PepsiCo’s director of global health and agriculture policy.

With around 22 percent protein, chickpeas offer a nutritious alternative to meat and require fewer inputs to grow. The crop is also a rich source of complex carbohydrates, fiber, minerals and vitamins.

Ethiopian farmers routinely grow chickpeas today, but typically as a secondary crop between regular harvests of grains. In addition, dependence on less-productive seed strains and a paucity of irrigation limits harvests, says Acharya. As a result, yields have historically been too low to ensure stable market prices, and farmers tend to keep most of what they grow, for food and as seed stock for future crops. In 2008, Ethiopian farmers produced 287,000 tons of chickpeas, exporting roughly 14 per cent of that. For most farmers, chickpeas “haven’t had significant commercial importance,” says Acharya.

But with PepsiCo’s commitment to buy excess production, if all goes to plan, both output and prices will rise. Working with farmers in Ethiopia’s wetter, more fertile north, Enterprise EthioPEA is introducing more vigorous seed strains along with technical and financial assistance to deploy low-cost flood irrigation. “Irrigation would also allow farms to add a second crop of chickpeas, during the dry season,” Acharya says, “and once installed, irrigation will help other crops, too.”

As harvests grow, Enterprise EthioPEA is working with local food processors to create an affordable supply of chickpea-based ready-to-consume supplementary food that will be used to feed 40,000 malnourished Ethiopian children.

Famine continues to take a toll in Ethiopia and neighboring countries. Rains did not fall in southern stretches of the country or in neighboring regions in late 2010, nor did they come in time in 2011 to save spring plantings. In parts of Kenya and Ethiopia, 2010–11 was one of the driest years since 1950–51. The tragic result is that today, some 13 million people face famine across the region. In Ethiopia’s southern provinces, 3.7 million are receiving food assistance from WFP.

Making a dent in these numbers will take time. Enterprise EthioPEA started last fall, and is slated to last through August 2013. By the following year, PepsiCo hopes crop yields will have doubled, producing enough to not only supply Ethiopia’s domestic needs, but also allow for export of about one-fifth of the crop, thereby doubling export income to farmers. By that time, PepsiCo hopes it can count on Ethiopia for about a tenth of its global chickpea needs.

Should Enterprise EthioPEA succeed, PepsiCo hopes to copy and repeat the strategy with other crops in other developing markets, says Acharya. A recipe that successfully blends profit with sustainable development is one few would want to keep secret.


ADAM ASTON is a Brooklyn-based writer covering energy, environment and green biz. Follow his work at adamaston.com or on twitter at @adamanyc.


Please check out the original article at Momentum, here: http://environment.umn.edu/momentum/issue/4.1w12/connections.html

Meet the Change Makers: Avon Calls for a Green Makeover | OnEarth

Q&A with Avon’s director of corporate responsibility Susan Arnot Heaney

The first “Avon Lady” started knocking on doors in New Hampshire back in 1886, selling beauty products directly to her friends and neighbors. The door-to-door approach may seem familiar — even quaint — today, but it was groundbreaking at a time when women had few job options outside the farm or factory and rarely owned or ran their own businesses. By offering credit, products, and sales support, Avon created the possibility for them to do so. By the turn of the century, the ranks of Avon Ladies surpassed 5,000.

Today, more than 6.5 million independent sales representatives sell Avon products in over 100 countries to more than 300 million customers. Echoing its original appeal in the United States, the brand continues to find fast success opening up opportunities to women in emerging markets such as Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. With a product line that now spans makeup, perfume, and jewelry, as well as gifts, clothes, jewelry, and housewares, Avon’s sales totaled $11.3 billion through September.

These big numbers inspire Susan Arnot Heaney, but they also make her job more difficult. As Avon’s director of corporate responsibility since 2006, Heaney focuses on developing, tracking, and reporting efforts to reduce the impact of Avon’s activities on the planet. Each year, the New York-based company has to balance expanding its business while also managing and reducing the use of resources, including trees to make hundreds of millions of catalogs, tons of palm oil for its cosmetics, more energy, water and other materials.

In recent years, Avon has mapped out in increasing detail how, when, and by how much it wants to alter its impact. Earlier this month, the company published its third corporate responsibility report detailing efforts and goals set out in 2009-2010. By 2020, for instance, Avon aims to cut its consumption of water per unit produced by 40 percent, compared with a 2005 baseline, while also aiming for 20 percent absolute reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. In the same period, Avon aims for its operations to produce zero waste by fully recycling or reusing any leftovers from its factories and distribution centers.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently caught up with Heaney at the unveiling of the company’s new LEED Gold-certified Manhattan headquarters to learn more about the beauty brand’s sustainability agenda and how it aims to harness the power of millions of “affiliates” — better known as Avon ladies — to help further it.

Susan Arnot HeaneyThe “Avon Lady” is practically a cultural icon, yet on Main Street, Avon storefronts are conspicuously absent. How do you get by with no brick-and-mortar stores?

It goes back to 1886, when David H. McConnell founded the company. At the time, women had relatively limited job options: teaching, factory work, and farming jobs dominated. Very few owned their own businesses.

Starting with the first Avon Lady, in New Hampshire, McConnell devised a model that let women build a business of their own, by selling cosmetics face-to-face.

The approach also meant that Avon has never built shops or showrooms. Today, our store is a brochure, and our website. Our representatives use these to show products to millions of customers in more than 100 countries. Orders are delivered by via mail, online or through mobile technology.

In terms of our sustainability efforts, this means that, unlike other big retail chains, we have never had to build — or heat, cool, and fit out — storefronts. That said, we still have millions of square feet of real estate worldwide — offices, factories and distribution centers — and ourGreen Building Promise ensures all new or major renovations around the world are certified “green,” such as our U.S. headquarters in New York City.

But this model means you print a lot of paper?

Yes. We’re one of the largest printers in the country. Our product brochures — we call them “brochures” because that’s what they were dubbed in 1886, even though you would call them catalogs — are printed around the world.

They’re smaller than a regular magazine: our current holiday brochure is about 5.5 inches wide by 8 inches high and has 227 pages. And we produce one campaign like this every two weeks, all year long, printing here in the U.S. somewhere between 13 and 17 million copies for each. Then there are our even larger international sales. Brazil, for example, is a bigger market for us than the U.S.

Keep in mind, these product brochures are never mailed. We do not do anything direct-to-consumer. Instead, we ship them to our sales representatives, who order the quantity they need and then distribute them to their customers.

Isn’t the greener path to move towards paperless catalogs and ordering?

Yes. We’re paper-intensive, but we’re reducing that. Customers can go online and page through a virtual brochure. But that approach doesn’t yet address the needs of our face-to-face sales process. We’re very careful about altering that process, but we also have a robust online business and we are experimenting with lower-paper workflows.

In addition to the web, we have mobile apps for consumers and our sales representatives to place their orders. In Eastern Europe, where a smaller volume of business lets us experiment more easily, we’re testing a paperless sales model.

Recycled is considered the greenest option, since it reduces the amount of trees that are felled. Yet supplies are limited. How do you meet your enormous appetite for paper?

Yes, so we’re tackling the paper problem through a number of efforts. Last year, we launched our Hello Green Tomorrow initiative, which ties together our global environmental management work, including paper, forestry conservation, and palm oil. As part of that we announced the Avon Paper Promise, where we instituted very stringent internal guidelines for our paper buyers.

The policy was developed with input from several environmental NGOs, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In October 2010 we were invited to join the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN), a WWF program to end illegal logging and improve some of the world’s most threatened forests.

Our goal is that by 2020 — and I’m certain we’ll do it sooner — 100 percent of our paper will be either Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified or post-consumer recycled content. FSC is our preference among the “green” options for paper, when possible. But FSC is still evolving, and at any given moment, there may not be sufficient supplies available to match the size of our paper needs.

Currently, 74 percent of our product brochures, which account for the vast majority of our paper use, have already met the Paper Promise commitment. Of that, about 25 percent of our paper is already FSC-certified, and the remainder is recycled or carries other certification.

What about product packaging?

Our impact on paper is largely driven by our brochures. Because of our direct sales approach, we tend to have far less packaging per product than brands whose products sit on a shelf in a store. In those environments, the products need more packaging to prevent damage. They need more visible branding too, to fight for a buyer’s attention. We actually don’t use cartons for a lot of our products, so for instance, a tube of moisturizer won’t be delivered in a box, packed into yet another container.

A challenge with programs such as Paper Promise is to induce change beyond your operations. How do you see Avon’s efforts in this respect?

We’ve learned that the impacts beyond us depend on our size, but also on our image. With paper, for instance, we are such a huge buyer globally that we are in strong position to influence supply trends. When we press for more FSC paper, suppliers see that demand and will alter their growing and purchasing habits in turn.

Palm oil is an environmental hot spot because tropical forests are being razed to plant palm plantations. How does this differ from the challenge you face with paper?

In some ways, paper is an easier problem to solve. In part, because we have more weight given how much we buy. But also because forests can be maintained sustainably, over decades, so that trees that are cut down can be replaced. And recycled paper offers another option. With palm, the conversion from forest to plantation cannot as easily be reversed.

The other difference is the degree of our influence. In palm oil, it’s almost the reverse: we have little buying power but enormous visibility. Food accounts for a far larger share of palm oil consumption — more than 80 percent — than cosmetics, so changes in that industry are the real driver of change. In truth, even if we stopped using palm oil tomorrow, there wouldn’t have a major impact on global palm markets. But lending our name to the issue raises it in the minds of many who wouldn’t otherwise know.

What we’ve done through the Avon Palm Oil Promise is to commit to buy only certified sustainable palm oil through the purchase of Green Palm certificates. This year we became the first major beauty company to hit the 100-percent goal.

So given Avon’s relatively small size as a palm oil user, how do the company’s actions influence other buyers?

We work with the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to help influence industry practices. There are those NGOs who criticize the Roundtable’s efforts precisely because it engages with companies, who feel that commercial buyers are the source of the problem. I see it differently: that you have to bring everybody — the planters, buyers, and environmentalists — to the table. RSPO is the one body right now that is trying to pull everyone together. We’re doing this through Green Palm certificates, where we buy “book and claim” certificates to support plantations that commit to grow palm in a sustainable, verifiable way.

Our goal is not just to do our purchasing sustainably, but also to help drive demand for sustainable palm oil and influence other bigger buyers. We can help by raising the awareness of sustainable palm oil, increasing the supply of it, and then, through that, reducing the pressure on forests and on the endangered species that live in these endangered forests.

Palm oil aside, critics have charged that the industry has a poor track record in terms of making ingredients transparent. In fact, the U.S. Congress is considering labeling rules to require fuller disclosure. How does Avon approach this issue?

The cosmetic and personal care industry has one of the longest safety records of any, and Avon is especially proud of our 125-year commitment to safety. As one example, in a recent report on breast cancer and environmental exposures by the Institute of Medicine, the findings did not support the risk of cosmetic ingredients as a cause of concern.

Avon adheres to all labeling requirements in the more than 100 countries in which we do business. Complete ingredient disclosure is found on product labels and avon.com according to the strict guidelines established by governing bodies, allowing consumers to make personal choices on products they select.

For many companies, health and environment are lightning-rod issues, attracting lots of outside attention. But studies show consumers, in aggregate, put such concerns further down their list. How do you reconcile this?

For better or worse, most customers of any brand don’t care too terribly much what’s coming out of the back end a factory in Guangzhou. We hope more will care, since we work to keep those waste flows in accord with the best global practices. But we know from marketing studies that most of what motivates the customers are the brochures, the samples, what they see in their hands. However, numerous studies show that customers — including Avon customers — increasingly consider environmental issues as a factor in brand choice, with some studies showing an 80 or even 90 percentile level of interest.

As a result, it may be hard to say clearly that sustainability policy X drove Y sales. But we also know that sustainability is a decision with very little downside –internally with our employees or externally with suppliers and customers. And there’s tremendous upside in terms of cost reduction, risk management, and employee engagement. And it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

What’s an example of the cost reductions that you’ve found from these efforts?

We find that there’s real passion around these issues, and that leads to real change, and genuine improvements in operations. Take Brazil, our biggest market. As you can imagine, when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of sales representatives, delivering their orders can mean criss-crossing trucks.

As part of a program requesting green improvements from our employees, the team in Brazil mapped out all these routes to find and eliminate the overlap. It was a massive project, but the savings has been amazing–in man-hours, in fuel, in speed of delivery and, ultimately, the environmental impact. And this came from someone just saying, “You know what? We have to do this better.”


TRUTH SQUAD

Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

Few would think of Avon as a forestry expert. Yet palm plantations in tropical Asia provide plant oils for its cosmetics. And temperate North American forests are a source of paper for its catalogs. In both markets, harmful deforestation is an ongoing threat, one that Avon is countering using its buying power and influence. NRDC experts laud Avon’s efforts in these areas but would like to see the company take even tougher steps to lower its impact and help accelerate wider change.

For palm oil, Avon has pledged to buy enough GreenPalm Certificates to cover all of its global demand. The certificate system works by offering farmers a premium price for palm grown in ways that are certified as environmentally and socially responsible, that do not destroy primary forest, and where farmers have committed to continually improve their operations. The premium paid for certificates to qualified farms acts as an incentive to lure others to improve their growing practices.

The rub? By design, certificate buyers such as Avon generally don’t receive delivery of the actual sustainably-grown oil their certificates bought. Rather, because of the way palm oil is traded, the certified crop is comingled with conventional palm oil from other producers at each stage of distribution.

This approach is “a good first step,” since it spurs farmers to change practices and boosts the total harvest of more sustainable oil, all while working within existing market mechanisms, saysDebbie Hammel, an NRDC senior resource specialist based in San Francisco. Yet Avon and others can do better, she adds. “NRDC believes that companies should progressively work to clean up their supply chains,” by requiring physical delivery of the certified palm oil, says Hammel. “This is more challenging that buying certificates, but it would ensure that none of the oil used is resulting from the harmful impacts of conventional production.”

Likewise, in its paper purchases, Avon is doing good work now but could be doing better, saysDarby Hoover, a senior resource specialist in NRDC’s San Francisco office. She lauds Avon’s commitment to buy paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) yet would to see Avon commit to buy a larger share of its paper from recycled sources. Recycled is better than FSC paper because to no trees are felled when making new paper from old. Moreover, less energy and chemicals are consumed to transform old paper into to recycled stock, compared with converting wood pulp into virgin paper, says Hoover.

“Avon should set a public target of 10 percent post-consumer recycled content and work towards 30 percent.” Putting that goal in writing, says Hoover, will drive industry-wide change, giving paper makers a clear incentive to buy more waste paper to convert into more recycled paper. “I’m not discouraging the use of FSC-certified paper, but there’s a hierarchy and recycled in better,” she says. — Adam Aston

 

Avon’s CSR Report Gives Its Paper, Water & Energy Use a Makeover | GreenBiz

Avon's CSR Report Gives Its Paper, Water & Energy Use a Makeover

Makeup is sometimes used to conceal embarrassing flaws. Today, with the release of its latest corporate responsibility report, cosmetics giant Avon opted to reveal more about its sustainability and philanthropic work than in the past. Titled “The Beauty of Doing Good” and available online-only atresponsibility.avoncompany.com, the self-assessment covers 2009-2010 and is the third such evaluation in the company’s 125 year history.

Avon wanted to increase transparency across the “three pillars” of its corporate responsibility missions: empowering women, sustainability and philanthropy. “Presenting the report online, in an interactive format, saves paper, but also lets us update the data more frequently,” said Susan Arnot Heaney, Avon’s Global Director of Corporate Responsibility. She added that Avon plans to publish a full report every odd year, with continuous updates of new developments, performance data, news and achievements as they happen.

Produced in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Avon’s corporate responsibility report aims for GRI Level B standards, a notch higher than the Level C achieved in Avon’s last self-assessment. The update includes a GRI Content Index listing of all standard disclosures covered in the report.

As with all such efforts, the details tell all the good stuff. Little familiar with Avon’s sustainability story until now, I was expecting to find a focus on organically sourced beauty care products. That’s in here, in the form of Avon’s policy to promote sustainable palm oil practices. I also anticipated an update on Avon’s support of breast cancer research (about to celebrate its 20th anniversary), and prevention of violence against women (founded 2004), both of which are touched on here too.

What surprised me is how much Avon has in common with the Fords and Fedexes of the world: Like big manufacturing and distribution companies, Avon is trying to drive up its energy efficiency, improve resource optimization, and chop down its waste. On those topics, here are a handful of achievements highlighted by Heaney when we chatted:

• Paper. By volume, Avon’s paper consumption leaves a larger footprint on the planet than do its cosmetics ingredients, Heaney explained. Surprised? Turns out that Avon is one of the largest commercial printers in North America. Famous for a direct-sales model embodied by “the Avon lady,” Avon has no retail outlets. Instead the company relies on “brochures” that agents pass on directly to customers every two weeks.

For instance, the current holiday edition of the North American version of this small-sized catalog was bigger than usual, but suggests the huge amount of printing Avon does: The publication numbered over 200 pages, with upwards of 15 million copies printed.

To formalize its effort to cut the impact of this river of ink and paper, Avon last year launched Hello Green Tomorrow, a broader green agenda that included the Avon Paper Promise: a comprehensive policy for promoting responsible use and protection of forest resources, and developed with input from World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and several other environmental NGOs. In October 2010, Avon joined (by invitation) the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN), WWF’s initiative to eliminate illegal logging and drive improvements in the world’s most valuable and threatened forests.

As part of this pledge, Avon has set a target to buy 100 percent of its paper from certified and/or post-consumer recycled content sources by 2020 with a certification preference of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). As of 2011, 74 percent of Avon’s brochure paper met the Avon Paper Promise commitments, and approximately 25 percent of paper used in Avon’s product brochures is sourced from FSC certified forests.

• Reforestation. In 2010, as part of Hello Green Tomorrow, Avon contributed $2.1 million to a Nature Conservancy Program to help restore 5,000 acres in the Atlantic Rainforest in South America. Latin America is increasingly important to Avon, accounting for $4.6 billion of Avon’s $10.9 billion in 2010, making it Avon’s largest global market. In 2011, Hello Green Tomorrow expanded its support for reforestation efforts to Indonesia.

• Green buildings. Avon launched its Green Building Promise worldwide in 2010 as well, formalizing a long-held commitment to design and build all new major buildings and renovations in accordance with LEED (or local equivalent) certification standards.

The company achieved Gold in Zanesville, Ohio (U.S.), Sao Paolo, Brazil, and Guarne, Colombia; Platinum certification in Shanghai, China; BREEAM Very Good in Northampton, U.K. At its new U.S. Headquarters in New York City, Avon is aiming for LEED Gold for Interiors, awaiting final certification.

• GHG emissions reductions. At its manufacturing operations, Avon exceeded their initial goal of 25 percent GHG emissions reduction, on a 2002 base, four years early with a 31% reduction reached by 2008. The company has committed to a further 20 percent reduction by 2020. Overall, this would cut GHG emissions by 40 percent from 2002 levels.

• Material use & waste reduction. In 2010, Avon increased by seven percentage points to 76 percent the share of waste that was reused at its global manufacturing sites. In its distribution centers, the rate rose to 80 percent.

• Water use reduction. In 2010, Avon reduced overall water usage by 10 percent in manufacturing operations, both in absolute and per unit terms, and by 23 percent throughout administrative facilities and distribution centers in absolute terms. Avon’s long-term goal is to reduce water intensity by 40 percent by 2020.

There’s plenty more in the report. And if you simply must read it in print, you can build your own version of the report and generate a custom PDF through their site.

Meet the Change Makers: Tiffany’s Diamonds and Gold Get Greenish Sparkle With Stance Against Pebble Mine | OnEarth

Most businesses hungrily pursue new sources of vital raw materials. Tiffany & Co., by contrast, has begun to forge a different path. In the last several years, the company has taken an increasingly public and vocal stand against an enormous gold mine that has been proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Pebble Mine, as the project is known, is estimated to hold more than $300 billion worth of gold ore and other precious metals.

Publicly listed Tiffany & Co. traces its roots back to 1837, when Charles Lewis Tiffany and John Young set up a “stationery and fancy goods emporium” in New York City. Today, with $3.1 billion in sales last year, the storied jeweler has a very big appetite for gold, diamonds, and similar earth-borne treasures. Yet Tiffany CEO and chairman Michael J. Kowalski sees the near-term costs of squelching a new gold supply as far outweighed by Pebble Mine’s potential risk to the environmental, and in turn, to Tiffany’s brand.

The proposed mine lies within a 40,000-square-mile watershed, filigreed by dozens of pristine rivers and tributaries, that is home to beavers, moose, and caribou, which feed off summertime plant growth. A huge population of bears, as well as the native Yupik people, relies on the annual return of spawning sockeye salmon, a flood of wild fish that ranks among of the world’s largest such runs. Opponents argue the fishery — worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year — and the broader ecosystem could be imperiled by mine construction and runoff of acids and dissolved metals. “I can’t think of a mine that threatens more ecological value in North America than Pebble,” Kowalski said.

Tiffany’s take on mining issues has evolved over a two-decade span that roughly coincides with Kowalski’s tenure, during which time the company has faced the overlapping crises of blood diamonds and conflict gold. Mining practices in strife- and famine-torn regions have led to grievous human rights abuses, as warring factions fight for access to mineral wealth, as well as environmental damage, such as mercury pollution from small-scale gold-mining operations. Today, the company states flatly that, with respect to mining: “We recognize that some public lands are simply not suitable for mining, and that their value for recreation and conservation is far greater than their value as a source of minerals.”

Michael J. Kowalski

Tiffany’s increasingly visible commitment to sustainability is documented in its first corporate sustainability report, released last month. In addition to advocating for responsible mining, the company has also focused on its retail operations — manufacturing its iconic blue boxes and bags, for instance, exclusively from materials certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Efficiency upgrades and solar panels in its stores have lowered greenhouse gas emissions by more than nine percent per square foot since 2006.

OnEarth contributor Adam Aston recently discussed Tiffany’s evolving approach to sustainability with Kowalski at his office — decorated with photographs of family travels to national parks in the United States and overseas — at the company’s Fifth Avenue headquarters in midtown Manhattan.

Tiffany & Co. depends on mining, yet mining is destructive by nature. How do you decide one proposed project is promising, but another, like Pebble, is not?

It’s difficult for us to make definitive statements about what constitutes responsible mining today. But in a simplistic sense, we’re clear that it’s better to extract minerals from a legacy mine than to threaten a pristine ecosystem. That led us to Rio Tinto’s Bingham Canyon Mineoutside of Salt Lake City. The precious metals used in our U.S. manufacturing come from there as well as from recycled sources.

The mine has been there for 100 years. There are legacy issues, certainly, but today the mine is being managed responsibly. I know Mr. Redford would disagree [Ed. note: Writing for OnEarth’s Community Blog, NRDC Trustee Robert Redford has compared the threat of the proposed Pebble Mine to the environmental damage done by Bingham Canyon Mine]. But it is a worthwhile debate.

Look, we all may not be pleased with the standard of U.S. environmental regulations for mining, but they are pretty good in a global context. The greater concern is mines in less-regulated areas. Isn’t the more positive thing to source from a nearby mine that is monitored than from one that is far away, where we have no influence, and regulations are practically nonexistent, such as in, say, Papua New Guinea?

For those reasons, some have suggested that Pebble Mine would operate using the world’s best practices, including regulation and monitoring.

The argument has been made: “Well, if you really care about responsible mining, you should be a supporter of Pebble because it will be the most responsibly built and managed mine in the history of mining, and it is unfair to tar Pebble with the abuses of past mining practices.” In fairness to the Pebble Partnership (a joint venture between a subsidiary of Anglo Americanand Northern Dynasty Minerals), I want to make this clear: We have no doubt that they would do everything possible to develop that mine as responsibly as they possibly can. And I’m going to presume that the state of Alaska will do everything possible to make certain that happens if the mine goes forward.

That said, we have reached the conclusion — as have many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local Alaska residents — that the risk is simply too great. Despite the best of intentions, the location of this mine is so inherently problematic that it is simply not worth the risk of a catastrophic event. Other jewelers have come to the same conclusion and, like us, signed The Bristol Bay Protection pledge.

Is this is first such position you’ve taken on gold mining?

No. Starting back around 1994, we began receiving a fair amount of unsolicited mail asking us to oppose the New World gold mine that was planned right outside of Yellowstone National Park. At that point, we didn’t have the ability to see into our gold or silver supply chain, nor had our company policy on these issues been developed.

We began making inquiries, and as we learned more we thought, “If the New World mine is built, and there’s a catastrophic failure of the tailings dam, the flood would destroy a good part of Yellowstone National Park. That’s not a good thing for the jewelry industry.” It was that simple. We drew the conclusion that, as leaders of the jewelry industry — not necessarily by size but certainly by reputation — it was appropriate for us to speak out in opposition.

When did you begin to formalize your mining policies?

About 10 years ago, we began to see concerns about gold mining enter the mainstream media. So around 2001, we started making inquiries to the NGO community, saying, “We’re very interested in responsibly mined metals, but what should we do?” The response shocked us because, back then, a lot of NGOs said, “There are no standards of responsible mining yet. We really can’t tell you where to go.”

In 2002, we began working with NGOs like Earthworks to move forward on this issue. Today we abide by a set of core principles around responsible development and operation of large-scale mines.

Tiffany is synonymous with diamonds. How did the crisis of blood diamonds influence your position on mining?

Our experience with blood diamonds certainly raised our awareness about the environmental and human rights risks connected to metal mining. They weren’t remotely on our radar screen when the stories first surfaced. That’s because, back in in the early ’80s, we did not manufacture the majority of our jewelry. We bought it from manufacturers around the world, primarily from Europe, and some from the U.S. We would also buy polished diamonds — not rough unfinished diamonds — from diamantaires* in historic diamond centers such as New York, Tel Aviv, or Antwerp. Because of this arrangement, we had little insight into the supply chain beyond those levels, and quite frankly, little incentive to make needed improvements to our supply practices. [*Ed. note: Diamantaire is an industry term, describing buyers, traders, and artisans who work in the middle layer of the supply chain. Diamantaires buy, cut and polish raw diamonds before they’re set into jewelry to sell to larger wholesalers or retail jewelers.]

So dependency on diamantaires left you with little control over the origin of the gems?

Yes. Then, in essence, we became our own diamantaires. We had also undertaken a separate effort to vertically integrate our supply chain, beginning some years before the blood diamond problem first surfaced. The company was growing rapidly, and we needed to assure the flow of supply of manufactured goods, and later raw materials. We committed to cutting and polishing our own diamonds so that we could buy rough diamonds at the mine head. That gave us better knowledge of where a particular diamond came from.

The horrors of Sierra Leone crystallized this part of the strategy. We knew we absolutely had to be able to identify the country of origin and, ultimately, the mine of origin of as much of our raw materials as we could.

It’s an ongoing process. We’re not all the way there, even today. But we’re confident that over time, for diamonds, we can identify the mine of origin, and attest to the social and environmental conditions at those mine sites.

Many industries have abandoned such vertical integration, arguing that high-volume specialists can be more efficient. How has taking control over your manufacturing process affected your bottom line?

By streamlining the supply chain, we have been able to capture a greater share of the profits typically taken at each step, from mine to trader, from trader to polisher, and so on. The vertical integration has been a strong profit-driver, and it’s also allowed us to try to exercise some leadership on corporate social responsibility issues around the supply chain. For example, we have invested heavily in places like Botswana and Namibia to train diamond setters and polishers. By investing in those communities, we’ve helped create industries that deliver more income than the simple extraction of gems could alone.

We’re probably rather unique, I think, for a retailer. We are without a doubt the most vertically integrated retail jeweler in the world. We make about 65 percent of all our jewelry at facilities here in the U.S., at a site in Westchester County, New York, and another in Providence, Rhode Island. This includes the jewelry we sell around the world — in fact, we’re a net exporter, even to China.

Other industries have established standards — I’m thinking of industry-created definitions of “organic” in the food business. Tiffany has been outspoken about the need for third-party standards for responsible mining. What progress are you making?

We very much believe that if there are to be standards for human rights and environmental practices in the jewelry industry, there must be genuine third-party certification, where NGOs and other stakeholders participate in the establishment of those standards. You saw this with blood diamonds. I think the industry rallied dramatically to correct the problem by creating theKimberley Process [to certify rough diamonds as conflict-free], which I think has largely been a success.

We have every control in place to be certain that diamonds from Tiffany only have Kimberley certificates. Can I make a 100 percent affirmative claim that nothing here has every come through? No one can. And that is, I think, where some of the biggest challenges are, in trying to assure supply chain integrity.

Does this position create tension with the mining industry?

We take great umbrage at criticisms we’ve faced. Some of the pro-mining folks have said of our efforts, “This is all about public relations.” In response, I say, “Hold on. We’ve been concerned about this for almost 20 years. This is not about greenwashing. This is something we’ve been committed to. It’s what our customers want. It’s about the business imperative.”

In fact, we’re pro-responsible mining because we think that’s what is essential for the growth and long-term economic health of the jewelry industry.


TRUTH SQUAD — Checking industry claims with NRDC’s sustainability experts

The prestige of Tiffany’s brand means there is real force behind the company’s efforts to reshape the way jewelry retailers and the broader mining industry are approaching sustainability, says Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who directs its urban west program and the marine mammal protection and Southern California ecosystem projects. He also leads the Save Bristol Bay campaign, bringing together a broad coalition of interests opposing the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In particular, he says, “Tiffany has a unique ability to draw attention to [Pebble Mine].”

As Tiffany turned up the volume on the issue, other major retailers such as Walmart and Target — which sell high volumes of lower-cost gems, gold and other jewelry — have taken notice, says Reynolds. This is leading to a process that he believes will improve industry practices and lead other major jewelry retailers to sign on to the The Bristol Bay Protection pledge, as Tiffany has done. At the core of the issue, Reynolds said, is the question of whether the mine can be built and operated without significant risk. “Under comparable hydrological circumstances, 93 percent of similar mines in the U.S. have failed to meet the standards they commit to in their original environmental impact assessments,” he notes, pointing to a 2006 study of water-quality problems at hard-rock mines.

Key state and federal deadlines for Pebble’s developers to submit permit applications for the mine were originally set for this year, but have been pushed back to 2012 and 2013. This suggests opposition to the project is getting traction, Reynolds says. Outside Alaska, the mining reform organization EarthWorks has successfully lobbied more than 60 jewelers to take the “No Dirty Gold” pledge, which would apply to the Pebble Mine. Tiffany & Co. is a long-time signatory. Target is the most recent retailer to sign on, in March of this year.

By taking this voluntary pledge, jewelers agree to abide by The Golden Rules of responsible mining: to ensure that toxins, such as sulfuric acid, don’t contaminate the land, water, and air, and that workers rights and labor standards are respected. Still, critics charge that until a third-party certification system for gold mining exists, efforts to clean up the industry will remain piecemeal and difficult to verify. — Adam Aston


Please view and comment on the original story here — the clicks help my freelancing goals. http://www.onearth.org/article/meet-the-change-makers-tiffany-jewelry

Tiffany’s CEO: How to Keep a Supply Chain Sparkling | GreenBiz

Sitting in his sun-soaked office at Tiffany & Co.’s Manhattan headquarters, chairman and chief executive officer Michael J. Kowalski reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany’s. In the 1962 classic, Audrey Hepburn coos over Tiffany’s 5th Avenue flagship store, “Nothing very bad could happen to you there.”

It’s a moment few CEOs could resist repeating. Kowalski mentioned it not just to remind me of Tiffany’s enduring image, but to make a point about sustainability. “That’s certainly the spirit our brand promises,” Kowalski said. “We believe in acting in a responsible manner across a range of issues.”

That Tiffany’s has not only survived but thrived in the 50 years since the movie was made was never a sure thing. In recent decades Tiffany and the broader jewelry industry have had to navigate through a series of environmental and human rights challenges that could have easily have proven fatal to their brands’ reputations.

Over the past 20 years — a period roughly coinciding with Kowalski’s career at Tiffany — the industry has faced blood diamonds, conflict gems and dirty gold. The scope of these challenges has been, arguably, tougher than at any time in the industry’s history.

And few, if any, were at first prepared to respond these crises, Kowalski reflected. Indeed, jewelry’s allure has almost always been unconnected to its origins: “For a long time, neither jewelers nor their customers knew or cared very much where or how these things came from,” Kowalski said.

That’s no longer the case, of course. Just how much this reality has been turned on its head in the 15 years since Kowalski was appointed president (he was promoted to CEO three years later) was evident when we caught up recently to discuss one the latest of the environmental challenges facing big jewelers: The simmering controversy over a proposal to extract copper, gold and other precious metals from an undeveloped site in coastal Alaska.

Even in resource-rich Alaska, the Pebble Mine, as the project is known, has become a lighting rod, pitting developers against local and far-off environmentalists. The site sits at the headwaters of Bristol Bay (home to Sarah Palin), and is part of the watershed that supports the world’s largest run of sockeye salmon, a renewable resource critics of the project say would be imperiled by mine runoff. The mine could potentially become North America’s largest open pit operation, given how big the find looks.

Mine developer the Pebble Partnership and other proponents of the project point to the financial gains and jobs growth promised by the venture. The Pebble site is estimated to hold many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold and other precious metals. The Pebble Partnership is a 50:50 joint venture between a subsidiary of Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Minerals.

While project approval is still being hotly contested, Tiffany is steering clear. Along with a growing roster of its peers, the company has signed the Bristol Bay pledge, vowing not to buy gold from the mine, were it built, and expressing “their opposition to the proposed mine, and [recognizing] the Bristol Bay watershed as an ecosystem of international significance.”

“We’re not geologists, but in our experience with mining over the past 20 years, we have reached the conclusion — as have many NGOs and local Alaska residents — that the risk is simply too great,” Kowalski told me. “Despite the best of intentions, the location of this mine is so inherently problematic that it is simply not worth the risk of a catastrophic event.”

Tiffany is also a signatory to the No Dirty Gold campaign, a broader industry-wide commitment requiring, among other things, that gold be mined with the consent of nearby communities, with humane labor practices, while protecting the environment.

The roots of Tiffany’s engagement on theses issues, stretches back to the early ’80s when, for purely commercial reasons, Tiffany broke with long-standing sourcing practice. At the time, most companies bought finished jewelry, polished gems and refined metals from middlemen, Kowalski explained.

Tiffany began to shift towards directly owning and managing more stages of its manufacturing process. The motivation wasn’t green, though. The company was growing quickly and faced challenges assuring the flow of top quality raw materials. “Our goal was to improve quality, manage the budget better, and capture more profits in the middle stages of the production chain,” said Kowalski.

The focus soon proved invaluable in other areas, as well, as concerns about blood diamonds, or conflict diamonds, began to flare in the early 1990s.

“Blood diamonds weren’t remotely on our radar screen — or the industry’s — when the stories first surfaced,” Kowalski recalled. “Starting in 1992, as we committed to cutting and polishing our own diamonds, we were buying directly at the mine head,” explained Kowalski, “So we could identify exactly where more of our diamonds were coming from, at a time when the public was rightly horrified by the atrocities going on in Sierra Leona and elsewhere.”

Today, quality and cost control remain top priorities for Tiffany’s supply chain operations. “We are without a doubt the most vertically integrated jeweler in the world,” said Kowalski. “That’s been a strong profit driver, but it’s also allowed us to exercise leadership on CSR issues.”

Reaching complete, 100 percent control over all the metal and gems moving through its factories and store is an elusive goal though. Even as the share of goods it can track back to raw materials grows every year, “There is never perfect certainty,” Kowalski said.

“We’re not all the way there, ” he said, “but we’re confident that over time, with respect to diamonds in particular, we can identify the mine of origin, and obviously therefore attest to the social and environmental conditions at those mine sites.” Tiffany abides by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a multilateral agreement to curtail the trade in conflict gems.

Soon after the blood diamonds crisis, precious metals became the next hot spot on the company’s radar, and the next focus of supply chain improvements.

“Around 1995, we began receiving a fair amount of unsolicited mail asking us to take a position, to oppose the New World gold mine that was planned right outside of Yellowstone National Park,” said Kowalski. “As with diamonds before, at that point, we didn’t have any visibility to our gold or silver supply chain.”

Tiffany came out publicly in opposition of the New World bid, while also overhauling its supply chain for gold and other precious metals. In 2004, it opposed another proposed project, a gold mine in the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness in Montana.

Today, all of the gold and silver used in Tiffany’s U.S. operations come from a single mine: Bingham Canyon, owned by Rio Tinto, at a site not far from Salt Lake City. Ore from the mine is refined in New England, under Tiffany’s supervision.

For all the changes in environmental practice that Kowalski has overseen, Tiffany remains publicly shy about its green agenda. “We’ve been very cautious in this respect,” said Kowalski. “We believe it’s something that our customers expect of us: the knowledge that Tiffany has acted in a responsible way in the sourcing, in the processing, of what you buy from us.”

It’s an approach that, Kowalski hopes, means Tiffany’s signature robin-egg blue brand will never be tainted with charges of greenwashing.

Photo courtesy of Tiffany & Co.


Meet the Change Makers: PUMA’s Sustainable Track Record | OnEarth

The sportswear giant is first out of the starting block with an aggressive effort to track environmental performance

PUMA has a long history of winning in dramatic style. At Beijing’s 2008 Olympic Games, Jamaica’s Usain Bolt savored his world record-setting victories in two sprints by holding up his golden PUMA track shoes in a victorious archer’s pose. In 1970, Brazilian soccer legend Pele drew TV close-ups when he interrupted the opening whistle of the World Cup to bend down and tie his PUMA soccer shoes. For the exposure, PUMA reportedly paid $120,000. Decades earlier, some of the first-ever spiked track shoes helped Jesse Owens sprint to quadruple gold-medal success at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The shoes came from PUMA’s forerunner, founded in Germany in 1924. All along, PUMA has remained a formidable contender in the devilishly competitive business of sporting gear. While continuing a tradition of high-profile athletic endorsements, a steady stream of alliances with leading designers — including Jill Sander, Philippe Starck and Alexander McQueen — has helped the German company resurrect its brand in the U.S.

The man credited for its resurgence, and for driving sales to $3.6 billion last year, is Jochen Zeitz. Appointed to run PUMA in 1993 at age 30 — at the time, this made him the youngest-ever chairman of a listed German company — Zeitz, a German nativehas also distinguished the company as a sustainability pioneer, especially in the self-assessment and publication of its environmental impact. In 2008, he established a foundation to support innovative, sustainable solutions that balance conservation, community, culture and commerce. Last year, 48-year-old Zeitz worked with Anselm Grün, a Benedectine monk, to co-author Prayer, Profit & Principles – Monk and Manager, a book about how to confront pressing social and environmental issues.

Earlier this year, PUMA published the results of the first ever “environmental profit and loss” statement (EP&L) released by a major corporation. Building on the convention of corporate sustainability reporting, triple-bottom-line assessments, and more recently initiativesto report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, PUMA’s EP&L attempts to put a dollar value on environmental damage not typically captured by standard financial measures. For the exercise, PUMA assessed the cascade of impacts caused by producing shoes and sportswear: from raw material production, such as cotton farming and oil drilling, to raw material processing, involving leather tanneries, the chemical industry and oil refineries.

Working with accounting giantPricewaterhouseCoopers and data firmTrucost, in May PUMA pegged the ecological costs of its operations for GHG emissions and water use at $124 million for 2010. Of the total, $9.5 million is due to PUMA’s direct actions, and the remaining $115 million are incurred in the chain of suppliers that deliver finished goods to the company. The approach is controversial. Critics have argued the system is too abstract to trigger meaningful change. But by putting a dollar value on the environmental impact of its production process, Zeitz contends PUMA is playing a “catalytic role” in helping to shift the way companies measure and record their costs, and ultimately reduce them. OnEarthcontributor Adam Aston recently spoke with Zeitz, who now serves as chief sustainability officer of PUMA’s parent company, PPR Group, as CEO of its Sport & Lifestyle Group, as well Chairman of the Board of PUMA about how the EP&L can help improve sustainability.

The corporate sustainability report is, for most companies, the most detailed assessment of their environmental impact. At PUMA, you took the process considerably further. What’s the benefit?

We’re moving away from the traditional sustainability report. Such reports are fine for senior management to chart broad efforts. But from the perspective of designers or buyers trying to understand the impact of their decisions on the environment, that approach isn’t specific enough.

That’s where the EP&L comes in. Used across the entire supply chain, it offers a better tool to look at product development and design decisions, to understand the impact of what raw materials we use, how the materials are processed, where our products are made, how they’re shipped, how we package, stock and sell them, and how we dispose of or recycle them.

What variables did you measure in your first EP&L?

The first two we focused on were carbon and water. In the next phase, to be announced shortly, we aim to add other environmental indicators, such as the precursors of smog and acid rain, waste reduction and land use impacts. Eventually, our goal is to track about 90 percent of our environmental impact. Beyond that, the final 10 percent, I think, will just get too complicated.

In phase two, we plan to assess the social impacts in sustainability, such as changes in standard of living, security and health of the communities where we and our contractors have impact.

Finally, in phase three, we want to broaden the scope to look, holistically, at the economic positives of business. If we’re truly comprehensive in this effort, we shouldn’t just look at negative things. The fact is that companies also do good things — creating jobs, paying taxes, fuelling economic growth, increasing wealth and improving quality of life. That’s also something that we want to start valuing.

What surprised you in your evaluation?

The real eye opener was how much of our impact happens so early in the supply chain. That’s when most of the carbon emissions are created and most of the water is consumed.

We estimate that over half of our carbon emissions happen in the production and processing of raw materials, in the raising of cattle for leather and treating that leather, for example.

That means that the second you decide what raw materials to use in your product, you’ve set in stone the bulk of that products’ environmental impact, no matter what happens later.

How are you using the EP&L findings to alter the way you do business?

These numbers show you where you can start to turn your product development in a better direction, by looking for alternative materials, investigating how they’re made, where and by whom. So the findings are influencing product design and development day-to-day, as well as manufacturing, sourcing, even marketing to a point. We’ve begun to share these findings with our suppliers, to help them understand why we’re strict about certain materials or processes.

Are consumers starting to see these changes?

In some cases, yes. For example, to cut the amount of cardboard in our shoe boxes, we worked with Yves Behar to create Clever Little Bag. It’s a design that cleverly combines a reusable bag with a cardboard frame. The approach does away with about two-thirds of the paper used in regular boxes — this saves trees, of course, but also huge volumes of electricity and water, given how paper is made. And since it has a built in handle, the design also eliminates the need for an extra bag at checkout. That makes it more convenient for the consumer. The process of designing this required that we coordinate with our suppliers in Asia to ensure the new approach didn’t cause troubles with how our shoes are packaged at the plant, then shipped and distributed.

Given that you don’t own most of the factories that supply PUMA sportswear, is it a challenge to push through these kinds of sustainable design decisions?

While we don’t own the factories or suppliers, we are deciding who our manufacturers will be, who our raw material suppliers are, where we buy our raw materials from, and so on. We have the ability to tell a factory: “Stop buying from that supplier.”

But, of course, there are cost implications. The full costs that we identified in our EP&L exercise are borne by all of the participants in our supply chain. Though we’re at the end of that chain, PUMA doesn’t pay the full cost of that EP&L.

That’s a reason we’re working to educate our suppliers. If we identify that the footprint of cushioning in our shoes, for example, is predominantly with the chemical industry, we can say to that industry and its suppliers: “Okay, guys, what can you do to shrink your footprint?” It’s got to be a joint initiative.

Do you worry that these efforts will drive up prices, and that higher price tags could turn off consumers?

Look, very little that we buy today is truly sustainable, but this effort has to start somewhere. I believe that brands have significant power to change consumer behavior. Consumers are starting to understand that, ultimately, we’re living on one planet and we have to look after it. There’s a natural survival mode that kicks in, where we are starting to realize that things are broken and we’ve got to change it.

For PUMA, the key is that we don’t over promise, and are very transparent and true to what we do, with honest communication about what we’ve accomplished and what we haven’t. Communicating these efforts is important: we don’t want to lose our customers’ trust by getting it wrong. Nor do we want to sell a greener product that is ignored.

We’re trying to sell a solution that is desirable in many ways­ besides its environmental impact — its design, materials, and its style. This effort has to include the consumer. Otherwise it’s not going to change things.

What have been the greatest challenges in deploying this method?

It’s not totally black and white, for sure. Data collection is a challenge, given how many suppliers feed materials into our products. But it can be done if the rules are set, and everybody plays along.

Then, of course, is the question of valuation. For example, there is not just one method of measuring the value of water or the cost of carbon.

For us, this meant being on the cautious side when it came to valuing environmental costs, generally opting for the higher cost estimate. So, for carbon, we take its social cost, around $90 per metric ton, many times the cost of a ton of carbon offsets in EU markets. The higher social cost of carbon reflects estimates of the future costs of climate change. [For background on how this value is calculated, check PUMA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Valuation Model.]

Are you open to sharing these methods with your peers, to help them spread?

Yes, absolutely. For those that are serious and want to associate themselves with what we are doing in an open manner, we will also be open with them. We have already had a number of requests from the automotive, chemical and beverage industries, as well as from one of our competitors.

Sidebar – Truth Squad: A more environmental balance sheet

Why would a public company such as PUMA bother to report costs it isn’t required to? After all, tracking down water-use and carbon-emissions data for far-flung factories manufacturing countless products is a costly, complex effort, demanding time from top management at PUMA and its partners.

The goal is to turn transparency into a competitive advantage. In fact, while PUMA’s particular EP&L methodology is unique, it’s one of an emerging set of related standards for corporations to recognize, measure and report the non-financial impact of their activities. “Call it triple bottom line or sustainability accounting or CSR [for corporate sustainability reporting], dozens of standards are being developed that attempt to capture elements of companies’ environmental impact,” says Alisa Valderrama, a finance policy analyst at NRDC’s Center for Market Innovation. Some of the leading players in these efforts include Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon Disclosure Project and CERES.

PUMA’s first effort, recording water and carbon costs on a profit and loss statement, may sound like a trivial bookkeeping shift, but the company is going a step further than most: Puma is not only disclosing impacts, but working to integrate what they learn into their bottom line. This means going beyond getting management to trim disproportionately high environmental costs. In the long term, such efforts can also help reduce the “material” risks to financial performance that companies are required to report. Energy shortages or toxic spills at a sub-contractor are examples of risks that could dent the annual returns of a company like PUMA. Lastly, share price could eventually benefit since some studies suggest that fuller disclosure of non-financial factors correlates with better investment returns.

“PUMA’s efforts sophisticated, a really holistic example,” Valderamma says. “This is costly, hard stuff: assessing your toll on the environment is not as easy as counting widgets coming of the assembly line.”

Yet she is frustrated with the broader state of reporting, because until such voluntary standards are incorporated into mainstream accounting and financial practices, their impact will be limited. “You want to get to the point where this is no longer rare and voluntary, but commonplace and expected, where Wall Street analysts are asking about EP&L in quarterly calls,” she says. “That will be the bellwether of real market change.” — Adam Aston