By Michelle Mauthe Harvey

Finding substitute chemicals for ingredients either known to be harmful or with unknown safety information can be a case of swapping the devil you know for the devil you don't, a recent report found.

“Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA and Regrettable Substitutes Found in the Linings of Canned Foods,” an extensive report by five public interest groups, documents the persistent use of bisphenol-A, or BPA, as a base ingredient for lining metal cans. Because of its endocrine-disrupting properties and other associated health risks, BPA has been the focus of a major federal research project and public campaigns to eliminate its uses in contact with food. Despite those efforts, 67% of tested cans still contain the chemical.

Equally troubling is that the report found four chemical types used in alternative can coatings – acrylic resins, oleoresin, polyester resins and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) copolymers. These chemicals not only were approved for uses decades ago with little to no data, but some have less-than-perfect safety profiles. This lack of innovation raises questions about the food industry’s use of informed substitutions.

Gauging alternative chemicals

In 2013, a group of more than 100 representatives of business, universities and NGOs published The Commons Principles for Alternatives Assessment, a broad consensus around simple, solutions-based guidance to move hazardous chemicals out of the supply chain and drive in safer innovations.

Key elements of informed decision-making that companies should use in choosing alternative product ingredients include reducing hazard, minimizing exposure, using the best available information, requiring disclosure and transparency, resolving trade-offs and taking action. While they were developed for chemicals in consumer products, these same principles apply to chemicals in food—or food additives— as well. In 2014, the National Academy of Sciences expanded these principles into its framework for chemical alternatives selection.

What’s in a can (liner)?

How do the food packaging industry’s choices and decision-making in replacing BPA measure up against the alternatives assessment principles listed above? According to the Buyer Beware report, not very well.

Some companies (e.g., ConAgra, Eden Foods, Campbell’s Soup) have taken action by either changing all their products to a BPA-free can or announcing a plan replace BPA in the near future. These actions are likely due at least in part to public pressure and international regulatory action; no company has acknowledged concerns about the safety of BPA. Only a few companies featured in the report disclose the composition of the substitutes they use; fewer still disclose safety profile data.

For many of the BPA replacements, little to no information on hazards or exposure is available. When individual components of the liners are disclosed, we see equally troubling chemicals such as styrene, vinyl chloride and hydroxyquinone. Information about leaching or migration from the cans and exposure estimates are also missing. Disclosure and transparency fare equally poor, as food contact substances are not listed in food packaging, although a few products carry a “BPA-free” label.

Key assessment factors to watch

To better understand alternatives, companies must review a chemicals’ performance, hazard, exposure and other data points. Trade-offs – such as differential performance based on food composition or human health and ecotoxicity issues – need to be factored into alternatives assessments, as do barriers to adoption such as availability or compatibility with existing processing equipment.

Simply deciding to use “anything but BPA” is a formula for regrettable choices. Companies looking to offer truly safer choices need to clearly and transparently document – and then pursue – their goals, principles for safer alternatives selection and decision-making processes.

Further reading:

• Alternatives Assessment: A Key Tool for Safer Chemicals in Products
• By Design: How Companies Can Make Safer Products

By Ben Ratner

A massive wave of market and societal forces is changing the oil and gas industry. Low commodity prices are driving out weaker players with excessive debt, and forcing those that remain to become leaner and more efficient. As climate change effects worsen and countries move to fulfill their commitments from the Paris climate agreement, public scrutiny of oil and natural gas and their impacts only intensifies.

The question is not will industry change to meet these challenges — it’s how. It’s about what opportunities can propel industry to come back stronger out of the depths of the commodity slide, as a leaner, cleaner industry standing on firm ground that it can play a meaningful role as societies work to transition to lower-carbon economies.

While natural gas remains a fact of life, and switching from coal to natural gas has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scientific research has demonstrated that potent methane emissions from the oil and gas system are undermining that climate benefit. The latest U.S. inventory shows over 9 million metric tons of oil and gas methane emissions, packing the same climate impact over a 20 year timeframe as over 200 coal-fired power plants. That’s a lot of methane no matter how you slice it.

Methane standards like the rule announced today by EPA can aid industry, for three reasons:

(Re)build public trust

According to the 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer survey – a gauge of public trust in the business world, spanning 33,000 people in 28 countries – the energy sector is among the least trusted sectors in the business world, ranked above only financial services and pharmaceuticals. As with any industry, trust can be rebuilt, but it’s going to take fresh effort from operators to curb emissions sector-wide, communicated in an open, consistent and verifiable way.

We know that there are some better actors in the oil and gas sector, but performance across the industry varies widely. Consumers only see the bad actors getting headlines, so when leaks or accidents occur, that’s all they have to form an opinion about how industry is performing. The EPA methane rule announced today is an important step toward leveling the playing field across the industry and setting a new status quo for responsible production.

There’s strong public support for measures like today’s rule that will bring emissions down – according to a poll conducted last fall by the American Lung Association, two-thirds of voters favor strong national limits on methane. Because EPA’s rule sets a new floor on what companies must do to contain emissions from new wells and other sources, it can inspire public confidence that operators are working to solve the problem.

Affordable solutions readily available, keep product in the pipes

The success of a similar rule that took effect last year – Colorado’s Regulation 7 requiring best practices for reducing methane emissions – is a clear indicator that companies are seeing benefits from identifying and fixing methane leaks, which represent lost product and revenue in addition to potent climate pollution. In a report released by the Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, eight out of ten oil and gas companies found that in the long run, their compliance costs have been low, they have broken even or they have profited from the required inspections.

Colorado’s rule is increasing workers’ attention to detail and prompting them to find 2 to 3 methane leaks per inspection, most of which can be fixed in just a few days.

Since the federal rules are in many ways comparable to what Colorado put in place, the Colorado success story is evidence that operators will be able to achieve similar benefits and comply with the national standards cost-effectively.

Driving innovation

Colorado is a powerful example of how well-crafted rules can create business value, and operators achieved those outcomes using today’s proven leak detection solutions. With new innovations on the horizon, the already-manageable costs of minimizing leaks will go down even further.

Collaborations like the Methane Detectors Challenge, which EDF leads with a diverse set of industry, academic and NGO partners, are catalyzing new advances in methane detection technology to cut more emissions at less cost. The new systems emerging from the Challenge and the broader marketplace will automate the leak detection process and help operators identify leaks faster, bringing down labor costs and reducing product waste and pollution even more.

Importantly, the EPA rule values the promise of technology innovation and establishes a process for the agency to permit use of emerging technology for reducing fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations. This encouragement sends an immediate demand signal to the marketplace to accelerate innovation of alternative emission monitoring approaches, such as continuous detection systems, which can help industry boost efficiency while delivering greater emission reductions.

A triple-win for industry

Public opinion is firmly behind taking action to curb emissions, and as we’ve seen in Colorado, operators are benefiting from minimizing how much product is lost. Today’s rule will help the sector as a whole chart a more sustainable path – one that builds more value for themselves and investors, reduces risk, and starts the process of rebuilding public trust that both business and policymakers are working to solve the oil and gas methane problem.

By Michelle Mauthe Harvey

EDF Senior Scientist Sarah Vogel accepts EDF's Safer Choice Partner of the Year award

With so many vague claims and misleading labels on products in the marketplace, it’s no surprise that consumers are increasingly calling for safer products and greater transparency with regard to product ingredients. That’s why we at EDF were proud to share the stage at the EPA’s 2016 Safer Choice Partner of the Year awards ceremony yesterday with companies, trade groups, and other NGOs working to do just that.

EDF was recognized alongside other Safer Choice Partner of the Year awardees for “demonstrated leadership in furthering safer chemistry and products.” Among the 17 corporate winners were chemical makers, product manufacturers and retailers like BISSELL Homecare, The Clorox Company, Seventh Generation, BASF Corporation, Ecolab and Wegmans Food Markets, all of whom have submitted products or chemicals for certification under the Safer Choice label.

Consumer health is one of the most pressing – and frequently, less recognized – areas of corporate sustainability, and one where driving adoption of safer practices takes both ambition and leadership. We are gratified to see such a diverse range of corporations take significant steps to introduce safer chemicals into the marketplace and for organizations like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Healthy Schools Campaign to lend their support and encouragement.

Every product labeled under the Safer Choice certification program makes the marketplace a little safer and our jobs as advocates for consumer safety a little easier.

Creating safer choices, a product at a time

The Safer Choice certification program was initially developed 15 years ago to help consumers identify products that use safer chemical ingredients and to recognize those businesses investing in such solutions. Each product receiving the label has been evaluated by EPA scientists to ensure that product’s ingredients meet the program’s human health and environmental safety criteria.

The Safer Choice label is an easy, meaningful way for consumers to identify which products have been vetted through a science-based process to be better for both human health and the environment. The program currently works with almost 500 partner companies and has certified more than 2,000 products to carry the Safer Choice label.

In recent years, consumers have grown more concerned about how chemicals in their products affect their health and the environment. A 2014 report by the Shelton Group and UL found that 83 percent of consumers bought sustainable products, citing “health and safety” as the reason why, and that 54 percent of consumers were concerned about “chemicals that come in contact with their skin.” Further, a 2015 Consumer Reports survey found that 44 percent of consumers would pay more for cleaning products that are safer for their health and an additional 46 percent said they would consider it.

Submitting products for certification through the Safer Choice program offers companies a clear win-win for making safer chemicals and products available to consumers interested in purchasing them. By proactively moving toward safer ingredients, companies gain recognition and market advantage – meeting consumer demand by putting products with safer formulations on store shelves with a label that makes them easy to identify.

Guiding safer choices up the supply chain

The fewer hazardous ingredients a product contains, the less likely it is that a manufacturer will need to quickly – and at significant cost – reformulate its products, from either new regulatory demands or consumer pressure. Through the publically-available Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL), the Safer Choice program guides manufacturers and retailers working towards certification to ingredients with lower hazard that still result in products that perform.

National brands are not the only ones to recognize the importance of working towards safer products:  retailers including Wegmans, Safeway and Target are also leading the way by seeking and achieving certification of some of their private label products. Target and Walmart have specifically included Safer Choice certification in their public-facing policies around safer ingredients and products.

Consumer Reports has profiled the Safer Choice label as a meaningful tool for shoppers, and we’re inclined to agree. The Safer Choice program offers companies an opportunity to show leadership in the marketplace when it comes to safer ingredients. Chemical and product manufacturers looking to better manage risk, preempt consumer demand and gain greater recognition for safer solutions should consider including Safer Choice certification in their product design process.

Additional reading:

• Product Design: Where the Rubber Hits the Road on Safer Chemicals
• Industry Leadership for Safer Chemicals through Supply Chain Transparency
• EPA Relaunches Safer Choice Product Labeling Program

By Maggie Monast

Earlier this week, a former sustainability executive with McDonald’s delivered a wake-up call for environmental groups, listing “5 ways that NGOs stunt sustainability.” In this article, Bob Langert explains the ways that nonprofits are failing to help companies turn sustainability commitments into on-the-ground results. In the context of sustainable palm oil, he notes:

“You can’t just go after big brands and expect them to manage a supply chain that has them seven stages removed, starting with the smallholders, to mills, then plantations, to storage facilities, refineries, ingredient manufacturers and then product manufacturers, then into a final product a retailer sells, such as ice cream, a granola bar or shampoo — with palm as a minute ingredient.”

He’s right – sustainability in supply chains, especially in agriculture, is incredibly complex.

So how can environmental groups effectively champion sustainability progress throughout global supply chains, from the C-suite to crop fields?  Here are three ideas EDF has learned from deep, on-the-ground partnerships with leading brands.

1. Get your hands dirty

In the interest of transparency, EDF and Langert go back 25 years to EDF’s first ground-breaking partnership with McDonald’s to phase out the Styrofoam hamburger clamshell. That project began when EDF staff attended McDonald’s Hamburger University, where we learned all the nitty gritty details of what makes the hamburger business tick. That insider knowledge was the foundation for understanding what strategies would work for McDonalds and for the environment.

Similarly, prior to launching our collaboration with Smithfield Foods, I spent a lot of time in eastern North Carolina, visiting grain buying locations and learning about the company’s operations. That knowledge was essential in developing a program that benefits the environment, Smithfield’s business, and crop farmers.

The more you know about supply chain/company operations, the more effective NGO-business…
Click To Tweet

1. Let science be your guide – and keep it simple

Langert notes that environmental groups tend towards “complexism” – in other words, making everything far too complicated.

Agricultural ecosystems are intricate, and sometimes we err on the side of asking too much in terms of the data that must be collected by corporations and farmers in order to measure the impacts of sustainable agriculture initiatives. But we’ve learned that there must be a balance between scientific rigor and the feasibility of data collection, or else you’re likely to end up with no data at all.

Environmental groups can and should harness science to make sustainability easier for corporations and farmers. For example, the NutrientStar program assesses the effectiveness of nitrogen efficiency tools and products on the market – all based on science. NutrientStar makes it easier for farmers to figure out what will work for their operations, and for food companies to decide what to promote to crop growers in their sourcing regions. That makes implementing sustainable sourcing projects easier, and also generates better results for the environment.

1. Keep your eyes on the prize

EDF’s sustainable sourcing initiative is working toward an agricultural system in which sustainability is business as usual. We want to transform the entire food supply chain, not just niche markets.

When EDF announced this vision, critics said it would be impossible, given that most food companies don’t have a line of sight to grain growers. In the past few years, we’ve proven that this argument doesn’t hold water.

It’s in food companies’ interest to better understand their grain supply chains, both to meet their customers’ demands and to manage costs and future risks to their supply chains – especially those posed by climate change. With modeling developed through our collaboration with the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, we are helping food companies better understand where their grain comes from and its environmental impacts and risks.

We’ve also found that companies do have the ability to assist farmers in adopting more sustainable practices – especially when you get farmers’ existing support system involved. By engaging farmers’ trusted advisors, such as agricultural wholesaler United Suppliers, and connecting those advisors to demand from food companies, we’re seeing tangible improvements from Campbell’s Soup, Unilever, Smithfield Foods, Kellogg’s, and a host of other companies.

While we still have a ways to go to reach our goal of sustainability as business as usual, we’ve seen action from companies and farmers throughout the supply chain who are willing to lead the way. That gives me hope that the prize is within reach.

Follow Maggie on Twitter – @MaggieMonast

 

By Elizabeth Sturcken

A question for forward-thinking business executives: if you could do something that would directly reduce more than 60 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80 percent of water usage, and two-thirds of tropical forest loss globally… wouldn’t you do it?

The answer: yes, of course you would!  That’s why you’re forward-thinking!

That’s also why Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has been working in supply chains (for years) to improve the impacts of the global production and use of consumer goods.

Those impacts are huge. Really getting at them, unfortunately, has not been so easy. The excuse that we’ve heard over and over again boils down to “you can’t manage what you can’t see.”  Basically, while most companies’ impacts are in their supply chain, most businesses have very little knowledge of how those supply chains actually function.  And, the further up in the chains you go, the less visibility there is.

EDF has a lot of first-hand experience with this: after years of on-the-ground work with farmers, our Ecosystems team knows precisely how difficult it is to capture impacts at the farm level.  Despite the on-farm benefits of optimizing fertilizer use in cost savings, reduced greenhouse gases and increased water quality, fewer than 20 % of companies collect this data.

How do I know that statistic? Because The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) has just released Greening Global Supply Chains: From Blind Spots to Hot Spots to Action, their first-ever impact report.  It’s full of stunning data about the huge weight that consumer goods place on people and the planet. Since it covers more than 80% of consumer goods product categories, it is the comprehensive way to understand environmental hot spots in global supply chains.

Which means the “no visibility” excuse is now officially over.

What kind of hot spots did they illuminate? Well, just to pick one product, take laundry detergent. From its palm oil origins (tropical deforestation) through ingredient manufacturing (chemical factory emissions, electricity consumption, waste water, and respiratory illnesses in workers), through detergent manufacturing (worker exposure to enzymes), through actual use and disposal of the product (hot water consumption, skin irritations and allergies, biodegradation in waste water, toxicity to aquatic life).

You can follow the same path for chicken, beef, cell phones, sneakers… the list of hotspots and products goes on and on.

But this impact report isn’t a document of doom-and-gloom. It clearly states that the potential for large-scale impact is dramatic. It also points out that there are already sustainability leaders in almost every product category—meaning that it’s not that leadership is hard, but that up until now very few companies have figured out how to do it.  It’s up to retailers to send a demand signal down the supply chain, pushing others to follow the leaders’ example. That’s when we’ll see raised performance across the board.

Because the bottom line is this: the drive for supply chain transparency is not going to go away—it is only going to increase. Companies are going to have to understand every node of their supply chains just to survive, let alone thrive.  Greening Global Supply Chains shows the immense opportunity in the supply chain—but also how few companies are seizing that opportunity. Finally, it shows the way forward to find the answers and ultimately to drive the results we need as a planet.

TSC’s ultimate goal? To gather comprehensive impact data for $1 trillion of consumer goods, thus setting them on the path towards sustainability.

That’s 1 trillion ways of saying there are no more excuses.

Follow Elizabeth on Twitter: @esturcken

Additional reading:

• Powerful Business: The Lever for Change Across the Supply Chain
• Linking Supply Chains and REDD+ to Reduce Deforestation
• Climbing Toward Corporate Sustainability, Even Walmart Can't Do It Alone

By Jenny Ahlen

Walmart has just released its report on Corporate Sustainability—the “Global Responsibility Report”.

Nicknamed the GRR, the joke around my office is that “GRR” sounds like a growl—GRRRR. But while its seventy-three dense pages might seem daunting, the GRR is anything but scary. In fact, from my perspective as both a mother and someone with unique access to the day-to-day workings of Walmart, I have to say that it’s a must-read.

Why? Because like all corporate sustainability reports, the GRR tells the story of how big business is—or is not—adjusting their operations to help the planet and its inhabitants.

And by inhabitants I mean you. And me. All of us.

To all the mothers of the world: like you, I want the best for my child. While there are many things we can’t control about our kids’ world, we do have power over things like what goes in and on their bodies, which toys can help them learn, and how to create a safe and loving environment for them to grow. Knowing what’s in these sustainability reports means knowing whether the stores and brands we choose every day are working with us, or making our job harder.

To all the C-suite executives: See above. Mothers everywhere are starting to demand both transparency and action around creating a healthier world for our kids. We are your customers, and we’re sending you a demand signal to make us happy.  Coincidentally, it can make your business more efficient, more profitable and more resilient—all things that your shareholders will love to hear. Believe me, you want to be able to issue a sustainability report that’s both real and robust.

So if the GRR is Walmart’s report card on global responsibility, how did they do?

There’s a lot in the document, but after a quick scan of the sections that fall within my area of expertise, I’d have to say: they’re making a lot of progress—probably more than most of their peers.  Two areas that stand out are:

1. Climate Change:

• In their direct operations, Walmart reports that their U.S. truck fleet efficiency has doubled since 2005, eliminating 650,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases since 2015. Those numbers are impressive.
• Outside of their own operations, it’s now fairly well known that six years ago Walmart set a goal of removing 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from their supply chain. They not only achieved but surpassed that goal—36.5 million metric tons have been removed to date. That’s the equivalent of over 39 billion pounds of coal left unburned, and that is amazing. It proves that setting audacious goals can deliver real results.

1. Transparency and Quality of Products:

• In 2013, Walmart committed to “reduce, restrict and remove use of high-priority chemicals using informed substitution principles”. The GRR reports that they’ve achieved a “95% reduction by weight in Walmart U.S.”. Translating that into plain English, that means a lot of things you didn't want to be in your products have been taken out. This is a big deal—and the first time that a major retailer has attempted something so daunting.

With each of these accomplishments come questions—and a realization that significant work remains.  Those fleet numbers, for example, are focused only on the trucks they own. As the mix of online versus bricks-and-mortar shopping continues to evolve, is enough being done throughout their entire transportation system to optimize efficiency?

And in terms of the chemicals: how did they arrive at that number, and where are the names of the offending chemicals? My inside sources expect that both will be released soon—to which I say “we expect nothing less”. Like any parent, I won’t think enough has been done on this issue until I can buy any product on the shelf and not worry that it could have an adverse effect on my child. When will that day come?

In any case, the few examples I’ve cited are just the tip of the GRR iceberg.  I encourage you to find yourself a comfy chair, settle in, and explore it for yourself.

But as you read, try to remember that, just as no parent is perfect, neither is any one company. My takeaway is that Walmart is sincere in its efforts to tackle the extremely complicated job of helping to make the world a better place for our children. And their approach—employing science-based processes that are scalable and focused on areas core to their business—is precisely why Walmart can lay claim to being a leader in their field.

Mothers and CEOs, take note.

Follow Jenny Ahlen on Twitter – @JennyKAhlen

 

 

By Boma Brown-West

It’s been two and a half years since Walmart first committed to adopting a sustainable chemistry policy. Since then, consumers, companies and advocates have been watching the retailer with interest. Today, Walmart released its ninth annual Global Responsibility Report (GRR), which outlines its environmental and social activities for the past year. For the first time, this report includes information about the progress it has made against its Sustainable Chemistry Policy adopted in 2013, which aimed for more transparency of product ingredients and safer formulations of products.

According to Walmart, it has reduced the usage (by weight) of its designated high priority chemicals by 95 percent, a pretty sizeable number. Walmart has said that it will post more specifics in the coming weeks on its Sustainability Hub, including quantitative results on all aspects of the policy’s implementation guide and details about how they achieved the substantial reduction.

While this is a promising step in the right direction, the GRR doesn’t identify the high priority chemicals that have been reduced. It is difficult to fully appreciate Walmart’s accomplishments without knowing the names of these chemical targets. We expect that the names of the high priority chemicals will be revealed on the Sustainability Hub.

Walmart’s announcement marks the first time a major retailer has publicly measured and shared the progress it has made against its commitment on chemicals. This is especially important to EDF because we know through research and experience that shared stories about progress can prompt others to follow, to the benefit of public and environmental health.

We believe there are three key factors that have made Walmart's progress possible: 1) the existence and use of a 3rd party-managed chemicals database that can generate quantitative, aggregate information about the chemicals on Walmart’s shelves, 2) a policy that prioritizes specific chemical targets, and 3) a time-bound business commitment to track and share progress publicly (in Walmart’s policy they committed to start sharing progress in 2016). We look forward to the day these practices reflect the business norm rather than the exception.

Market leadership will always have an important role to play alongside policy in driving safer chemicals and products into commerce. EDF looks forward to the additional details forthcoming on Walmart’s Sustainability Hub.

Follow Boma Brown-West on Twitter: @Bbrown_west

Also of interest:

• Industry Leadership for Safer Chemicals through Supply Chain Transparency
• Powerful Business: The Lever for Change Across the Supply Chain
• How 10 Years in the Trenches with Walmart Built an On-Ramp for the Future

By Tom Murray

This Earth Week, I want to continue the call for a new type of corporate leadership – one that allows both the planet and business to thrive.

It’s time for corporate leaders to ramp up their sustainability goals, embed sustainability across their business strategy, and most importantly, look at the positive momentum they can drive beyond the walls of their own operations. What lies beyond those walls? Their supply chain, their partners, their competitors, their consumers, and yes, even policy.

And it’s time, this Earth Day, for corporate leaders to use their voices to amplify support for smart climate and energy policy.

Today 110 companies came together to to celebrate the historic Paris Agreement, encourage investment in the low-carbon economy, and reinforce support for the Clean Power Plan. These companies know that U.S leadership is critical to making the pledges of Paris a reality and to enable the transition to a thriving, clean energy economy.

I’m encouraged by the commitments that these and other corporations have made so far this year, but also recognize the need for more private sector leadership to make progress on climate action.

Now is the perfect opportunity to step forward and align your internal sustainability strategy with your external engagement in policy, and there are many key areas that need your support.

The new wave of corporate #sustainability leaders minimize risk by preparing for a new #CleanEnergy…
Click To Tweet

Paris Agreement Signing Ceremony

The biggest news this Earth Day is the Paris Agreement signing ceremony at UN Headquarters in New York.

The Paris Agreement is a monumental step forward toward turning the corner on climate change, and business can help accelerate it. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will use the signing ceremony as an opportunity to encourage business leaders to push the new agreement into action. Ki-moon hopes the influence of global business leaders will “provide for the smooth finalization of the operational details needed to give effect to the provisions of the new Agreement.”

The business community thrives when policy certainty is not dependent on political cycles. The U.S. government’s commitment was vital to the signing of the Paris Agreement; now it’s time for U.S. businesses to lead the way on implementation.

Clean Power Plan

Another important policy that needs corporate support (and action) is the Clean Power Plan, which will lower carbon emissions from existing power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The Clean Power Plan will increase access to renewable energy, create quality jobs, lower electricity bills, and reduce business risk from energy price fluctuations.  That’s why it has the backing over 365 businesses and investors.

Previously I have written about the importance of U.S business leadership for the success of the Clean Power Plan, and I’m optimistic that the Clean Power Plan will remain in effect after hearings in June. I’m also hopeful for the future of the Clean Power Plan based on the increasingly broad group of business voices that have emerged to support it over the past few weeks, including a large group of power companies, three advanced energy trade associations, and a range of  forward-thinking companies – Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft. These are companies that are worth over $1.7 trillion and have stood up for smart policy in addition to creating more efficient and sustainable supply chains.

RE100

RE100, the global collaborative of companies committed to 100% renewable power, recently welcomed Bloomberg and HP into this group of influential leaders.

Nate Hurst, HP chief sustainability and social impact officer, said, “HP Inc.’s commitment to use 100% renewable electricity supports our ongoing efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions across our technology portfolio, operations, and supply chain. We know that lowering our carbon footprint is critical to our long-term business sustainability and contributes to our customers’ success.”

"By embracing the use of renewable electricity to power our operations — and encouraging companies in other industries to do the same — we demonstrate how, through innovation, we can drive business efficiencies and those of our customers and partners in a cleaner and more sustainable way."

As of this writing, 58 companies have joined the RE100 campaign, up from 36 in September 2015. You can join industry leaders like Nike, Starbucks and Walmart that have made the commitment to 100% renewable power. Make a commitment this Earth Day to go 100% renewable.

Internal Carbon Pricing

Another initiative that should not be overlooked by corporate leaders is carbon pricing. Internal carbon pricing helps companies get ahead of government policies that put a price on carbon and enables companies to be prepared when policy impacts their markets.

At COP21, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) was launched to “expand the use of effective carbon pricing policies that can maintain competitiveness, create jobs, encourage innovation, and deliver meaningful emissions reductions.” The coalition brings together governments and business to accelerate carbon pricing around the world.

According to the Executive Guide to Carbon Pricing Leadership, report by the United Nations Global Compact, there are now more than 1,000 companies reporting that they price carbon internally or plan to do so in the next one to two years.

Global giants like Unilever and Nestle are some of CPLC’s private sector partners, but more U.S companies need to be part of the dialogue to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are met.

Look for a "declaration" from the CPLC on the eve of the Paris Agreement signing ceremony that asks more countries to price carbon emissions and encourages businesses to set internal prices.

"The Paris Agreement sends a powerful signal that the de-carbonization of the global economy is inevitable, that it is beneficial and it is already happening," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "Placing a price on carbon is an important element of the transformation of our world.”

Smart business minimizes risk while preparing for the future. The business leaders of tomorrow will be the ones that align their strategies with a new clean energy future.

Join the ranks of corporate leaders who are shaping policy rather than being shaped by it. This Earth Day make your sustainability voices heard loud and clear inside and outside your corporate office.

Follow Tom Murray on Twitter, @TPMurray

 

By Victoria Mills

The Clean Power Plan  (CPP) is topping the news as major coalitions of supporters have filed amicus briefs with the D.C. Circuit Court. With leading brands like Google, Apple, Adobe, Amazon, IKEA, Mars and Microsoft all stepping up and voicing support, you might wonder – what’s in it for them?

The plan, which will lower the carbon emissions from existing power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, is a practical, flexible way for the U.S. to cut climate pollution and protect public health. President Obama has called it "the single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change.”

It’s encouraging to see many states, cities, power companies, public health and medical associations, and environmental organizations continue to push for smart environmental policy. The full list of Clean Power Plan supporters is here.

We are particularly excited about the range of private sector support for the Clean Power Plan.

Businesses like Google, Adobe, IKEA and Apple have an important stake in the success of the…
Click To Tweet

When it’s fully implemented, the Clean Power Plan will create $155 billion in consumer savings—putting more money back into the pockets of customers. And, a successful Clean Power Plan will help companies meet their renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets.

What’s in it for Companies? The Clean Power Plan will provide:

• Greater access to renewable energy sources. The Clean Power Plan will increase access to renewable energy by an estimated 30%. Google has already said the Clean Power Plan will help the company derive all electricity for its data centers from wind and solar.
• Lower average electricity bills. In 2030, when the plan is fully implemented, electricity bills are expected to be about 8 percent lower than under business as usual.
• Opportunity for job growth and investment. The CPP will drive investment in low cost clean energy technologies, creating quality jobs and positioning American business to lead the transition to a low-carbon economy.
• Long–term price stability on energy. Companies will be able to reduce risk from energy cost uncertainty, like volatile fossil fuel prices, and improve long-term forecasting and business strategy.

The 365 companies that have previously shown their commitment to the Clean Power Plan are a step ahead. But other businesses can still catch up. This is an unprecedented opportunity for companies to align their internal sustainability goals with climate policy.

Over the past week dozens of other private sector organizations have stepped forward to support the Clean Power Plan. Leading power generators, large electricity consumers and other iconic brands all recognize the broad, society-wide benefits of the flexible approach at the heart of the Clean Power Plan.

These companies have demonstrated that there is a new bar for corporate climate leadership: standing up for specific, impactful, cost-effective policy, and stating in the brief, “policies like those embodied in the Clean Power Plan—will create a virtuous cycle of accelerated innovation, further price declines, and additional [clean energy] deployment.”

What you can do

There is still time for your company to take this next leadership step. As the hearing on the merits of the Clean Power Plan moves forward this June, here’s what you can do:

1. Call on your state to move forward with state planning efforts to advance rigorous analysis, climate protections and new economic incentives, pollution reduction progress, and regulatory stability.
2. Follow the Clean Power Plan case and be ready to publicly join leaders like Google, Microsoft and others in the voicing your support
3. Set public goals to shift your power consumption to renewable sources.
4. Share best practices around corporate sustainability.

Private sector leadership can help shape the future of energy and benefit your company, the economy and environment. The Clean Power Plan helps assure that both business and the planet can thrive.

See all the briefs in support of the Clean Power Plan here.

The chorus of corporate voices supporting smart climate policy is getting larger and louder – it’s time to join in.

By Tom Murray

As the legal briefings pile up over the Clean Power Plan (CPP), I’m inspired by the growing number of companies and business organizations standing up for the most significant step in U.S. history toward reducing climate pollution.

The bar continues to rise for companies that want to lead on sustainability, and it’s great to see companies aligning their corporate sustainability strategy and policy advocacy. Today’s corporate-led amicus briefs in support of the Clean Power Plan and smart climate policy are the latest example.

IKEA, Mars, Blue Cross Blue Shield MA and Adobe (collectively called Amici Companies) praised the EPA’s Clean Power Plan as a viable solution that will create market certainty and directly benefit their organizations. “It is important to the Amici Companies that they reduce their carbon footprints by procuring their electricity from zero- and low-emitting greenhouse gas (GHG) sources, not only to be good stewards of the environment, but to also because it preserves their economic interests.”

Tech industry leaders Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft (collectively called Tech Amici) also threw their weight behind the plan, saying, “delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.”

These leading companies represent half a trillion dollars in revenue, demonstrating robust business sector support for the Clean Power Plan. Their filings continue the important momentum started in July 2015 by 365 companies and investors that sent letters to governors across the U.S. stating their support as being “firmly grounded in economic reality.”

Dynamic power sector voices are supporting the rule as well. Three advanced energy associations, representing a $200 billion industry, have stepped up to intervene in defending the Clean Power Plan. Numerous major power companies are also defending the rule in court: Just today, Dominion Resources filed a brief endorsing the Plan's "flexible, accommodating" approach.

With vigorous private sector support for the #CleanPowerPlan, arguments of impending economic ruin…
Click To Tweet

In fact, leading companies argue that inaction on climate will “subject companies to unacceptable risks” — risks that force businesses to bear economic and social disruptions to their operations due to the uncertainty of future energy resources. Companies who support the Clean Power Plan are major energy consumers and purchasers; planning for future energy resourcing is critical to their long-term business strategy.

Sixty percent of the largest U.S. businesses have established public sustainability and clean energy goals. That’s fantastic, but literally billions of kilowatt hours are still needed to meet renewable energy goals. Companies no longer want to rely on unstable fossil fuels. They are looking to the Clean Power Plan to spur investment and increase reliability, energy efficiency and low-cost clean energy options. Kudos to the industry leaders that are standing up to outdated views and the false choice between business and the environment.  Real corporate sustainability leadership takes courage and a willingness to support the smart policy changes required to preserve the natural systems that people and the planet rely on.

I’m looking forward to seeing more businesses follow their lead.

EDF is tracking all Clean Power Plan case resources here.

Follow Tom Murray on Twitter: @TPMurray

 

By Namrita Kapur

This post is part of an EDF+Business ongoing series on sustainable finance, highlighting market mechanisms and strategies that drive environmental performance by engaging private capital. EDF is actively engaging leaders with the capital and expertise needed to catalyze sector-wide changes—from accelerating investment in energy efficiency and clean energy, to protecting tropical forests, restoring depleted fisheries and saving habitats of endangered species.

Green bonds have been hailed as a key vehicle for driving clean energy investments both before and after the signing of the Paris climate agreement. And the range of organizations utilizing them continues to diversify – Apple issued its own $1.5 billion bond last month to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for its operations. But as the pool of bonds issued each year grows, investors are increasingly concerned that clear standards are needed.

Through 2013, the World Bank was the primary issuer of green bonds. The simplicity of the market made it easier to verify the environmental benefits. As the market has grown, so has the need for institutionalizing transparency to validate the promised benefits.

While roughly two-thirds of global green bonds issued in 2015 received either third-party verification or second-party opinion, only two U.S. municipal offerings received any external review, casting doubts on the U.S. market’s credibility. Investors like insurance firm Allianz are concerned that many of the funds earmarked for sustainable development projects are not achieving the desired impact, and are calling for strong standards to help provide the market with increased certainty.

Bankers and investors are driving progress on transparency

Two groups, in particular, have been working to answer investors’ concerns. The Green Bond Principles (GBP) provides a set of voluntary guidelines calling for increased transparency and assists investors in evaluating the environmental impact of their green bond investments. In 2015 the number of signatories to the GBP reached a milestone 100 signatures, ranging from investors like TIAA-CREF and Generation Investment Management to issuers like Unilever, to underwriters like Barclays, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. Early issuers – global institutions and governments like the World Bank and the state of Massachusetts – now make up only a small subset of the signers. The vast majority of issuers are banks and wealth management companies, including Blackrock, JPMorgan Chase and Zurich.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI), an investor-focused nonprofit, has also developed a green bond standardization and certification scheme. Since our interview last September with CEO Sean Kidney, CBI has released a new set of green bond standards, which fully integrate and build significantly on the Green Bond Principles. A key highlight of the new standards is a requirement that organizations report annually on how bond proceeds are being used. The updated standards also include eight sector-specific areas – wind, solar, low-carbon buildings, geothermal, forestry and agriculture, bioenergy, low-carbon transit and water – to tailor bonds to the relevant impacts.

A recent example of the standards being applied is New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) announcement last month that it would be issuing $500 million in green bonds aimed at achieving CBI certification. MTA services (e.g., bus, subway and commuter rail), which connect New York City’s five boroughs and significant portions of New York and Connecticut, help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 15 million metric tons of carbon emissions. The MTA’s bond proceeds will go toward upgrading public transportation offerings in the state, and are the first bonds certified under CBI’s Low-Carbon Transport Standard.

Keeping the investment oxygen in the room

While more transparency and universal standards seem like positive steps, some investors and lenders are concerned this will stifle growth. Extensive reporting and third party verification on projects add costs to issuing green bonds compared to regular bonds.

The CBI is also playing a key role here—educating both corporations and investors to see verification as the pathway to growing confidence and scale in the market. They recently announced a partnership with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) aimed at driving more corporate issuance of green bonds. Both organizations maintain that as the benefits of green bonds become better understood, “the corporate market will gain further scale […] and the lower financing costs [will] outweigh verification and reporting efforts.”

Risk versus reward

How the desires of investors are balanced with the costs to issuers will affect both the quality and expansion of offerings over the next year. If there are no reforms and no issuance of universal standards, the market for green bonds could lose credibility—an outcome we seek to avoid.

Apple and the MTA issued their first green bonds last month because they believe it could attract new investors. However, new investors could also leave the green bond market  if they don’t see the environmental benefit of their investments fulfilled. If we can ensure transparency in this burgeoning sector, then the green bond market will be positioned to not only grow, but do so sustainably.

Follow Namrita on twitter: @namrita_kapur

 

By Michelle Mauthe Harvey

Recently, SC Johnson took the next step in product transparency, becoming the first major player in the consumer goods industry to disclose 100 percent of fragrance ingredients for a product line – in this case, its Glade® Fresh Citrus Blossoms collection. Consumers can now see what chemicals make up these home fragrances by reading product packaging or visiting SCJ’s WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com ingredient website. Over time, the company will expand the disclosure to the rest of its air fresheners and other products.

This is meaningful. Industry-wide, major consumer goods companies list fragrances in aggregate on an ingredient list, whereas in actuality, those fragrances are composed of many individual chemicals. Consumers deserve greater transparency.

As SCJ Chairman and CEO Fisk Johnson noted, “… key to [making thoughtful ingredient choices] is continually challenging the status quo. By sharing the full ingredient list for this fragrance — all the way down to the component level — we’re going beyond the norm of even so-called ‘natural’ products.”

EDF has applauded SCJ’s efforts on fragrance disclosure in the past, and we encourage them to continue increasing transparency throughout its product line.

We also urge them to go one step further in their pursuit of leadership by adding each ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Service registry number (CASRN). These are unique identifying numbers that enable people who are interested in learning more to search other data sources. They should be easy for SCJ to provide, since individual chemicals should always have a CASRN.

You eat what you smell

Much of what we smell is also in what we eat. About half of the fragrance industry’s palette are also flavoring chemicals used in food.

SCJ cites cinnamon essential oil as an example. It contains myrcene, estragole, safrole and methyl eugenol, all of which are on the California Proposition 65 chemicals list because they are known carcinogens. “None of these [chemicals] are present in the new Glade® Fresh Citrus Blossoms collection,” according to SCJ, and for good reason. Known carcinogenic chemicals should not be used in consumer goods products and certainly not as food flavoring additives.

As noted in an EDF blog, on January 4 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it is considering whether to rescind its 1964 approval of seven flavoring chemicals — including methyl eugenol and myrcene — as food additives. Under current law, package labels are only required to list flavors generically as either “artificial” or “natural;” the latter simply refers to chemicals derived from plants. Either way, consumers have no way to know if myrcene or other toxic chemicals are present.

It’s time for food companies to follow the lead of SCJ, and disclose exactly which flavor chemicals are being used.

Additional reading:

• Consumers' Changing Views on Food Safety, and the Opportunity for Action
• Securing Safer Chemicals in Food

By Nancy Buzby

The term ‘greenwashing’ might be officially outdated. In 2016 the number of companies making unmerited PR splashes over sustainability is far outweighed by those who are taking significant strides forward and not talking about it. When faced with the science of climate change and transparency into corporate accountability in 2016, sustainability is simply part of doing business.

Yet many leading companies still shy away from fully embracing their sustainability stories.  Excellent, groundbreaking work is happening across the private sector with no-one around to hear. To re-philosophize the old saying… if a tree grows in a deforestation zone, and no one is around to hear the re-surging wildlife, does it make an impact?

Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Corporate sustainability has reached new heights, driven new innovations and industries, and been embedded at the core of business strategy and systems, yet there are still barriers to sharing this information publicly.

Having just surfaced from taking a deep dive into Environmental Defense Fund’s 10-year history of working with Walmart, I’m particularly focused on all the great corporate sustainability stories that need to be told. I was also encouraged to see this theme emerge at the recent GreenBiz16 conference and in their follow up article.

Companies are effectively doing a disservice by not getting such messages out there. What if your company is "walking" more than it is "talking"?

Joel Makower, Chairman and executive editor of GreenBiz

As an environmental NGO that has partnered on the ground with leading brands for over 25 years, EDF is keenly aware that companies are often doing considerably more sustainability work than they publicize. Why is this? It could be out of fear of greenwashing; fear of financial stakeholders assuming that mindshare has been taken away from the next quarter’s earnings; or perhaps fear of being perceived as irrelevant to their target audiences.

Let me quickly debunk each excuse using the theme of transparency:

• Greenwashing – Any leading company telling their sustainability stories must have the science and data to back them up. The transparency trend, as it pertains to a company’s environmental impact, is ramping up. Look at the hundreds of consumer product companies who have signed onto The Sustainability Consortium to better index and surface sustainability across their entire supply chains.
• Next quarter’s earnings – The financial risks of climate change are also becoming more transparent. In 2050, there will be 9 billion people in the world demanding more of everything – more energy, more food, and more products – using more resources and creating more pollution. Ensuring financial viability in the long-term means embracing, and talking about, corporate sustainability today.
• Target Audiences – From investors to consumers to a new generation of employees, a company’s target audiences are going to increasingly demand transparency into its sustainability actions before choosing to engage with it.

Showing that business and the planet can thrive simultaneously is a competitive advantage
Click To Tweet

 

Right now, it’s usually environmental groups, like EDF, surfacing corporate sustainability stories and inviting people around the campfire. We know that when we amplify this work there is a ripple effect: across supply chains, across industries, to policy-makers, investors and, hopefully, to consumers.

“The problem isn’t that most companies don’t have strong, legitimate things to say about their sustainability efforts. It’s that they try to tell all of it in little bitty ways or they tell none of it — in either case, they don’t make a marketing impact. What works is boiling the story down to a tight, emotionally compelling narrative that aligns with what the market cares about, what the brand stands for and what a company’s internal culture can embrace.”

                                                Suzanne Shelton, President & CEO, Shelton Group

A key step in the right direction is for the private sector to stand shoulder to shoulder with NGOs in telling their stories: Conservation International and HP, EDF and Walmart , WWF and Coca-Cola. Getting unlikely partners telling their stories together brings important initiatives into the spotlight. EDF and AT&T worked together to create water efficiency tools for buildings, and then went the extra mile by going to water-stressed regions to share best practices with companies and communities.

“When AT&T and EDF take the stage together to talk about our collaboration to drive water efficiency, I feel like people listen twice as hard.”

John Schulz, AVP, Sustainability Operations, AT&T

It’s time to go beyond the annual sustainability report and engage deeply on these stories. PepsiCo did an excellent job of this with their How Will We microsite, launched contiguously to their latest sustainability report. PepsiCo’s Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi picked up the pen herself to call for strong heavy-duty truck standards that are good for business and the environment in a recent op-ed with EDF’s Fred Krupp.

So many companies have impactful, innovative, brand-building sustainability stories that aren’t being heard. Excellent work is being done, but often in a marketing vacuum. Making sure these stories are shared is what fuels me – along with a lot of Starbucks.

Follow Nancy Buzby on Twitter: @NancyBuzby

By Jason Mathers

We all like clear-cut, simple, black and white answers. But the world, as you well know, is a really complex place. Yet despite this general acknowledgment of complexity, we still get caught-up in simplified debates: paper vs plastic; cloth vs disposable diapers; and now shopping online vs shopping at the store.

This is not a cage match. The fact of the matter is that both shopping online and shopping at stores are here to stay. And this is a good thing. We now have more choices. Citizens and companies can leverage these choices to minimize their environmental foot print.

Into the debate mindset, Simon Property Group released an assessment, Think Before You Click: Does Shopping Behavior Impact Sustainability? Simon is a leading real estate company that owns a number of malls. It also has been a host company for EDF Climate Corps.

The paper is a valuable because it sheds light on one way people shop: buying multiple items at once and combining the shopping trip with other activities. It concludes that — in the specific scenario Simon created — shopping at the store has a lower environmental impact.

To me, the conclusion is the least insightful aspect of the study. It is not surprising that a large owner of malls would choose a scenario that highlights the attributes of shopping at malls compared to shopping online. What is most insightful to me is the attributes that determine the environmental impact.

Distance from a retail location, distance and method of online delivery, likelihood of returns, building energy use and packaging were all attributes that were examined in the Simon paper. These attributes were also the factors used in the most authoritative research I have yet read on the topic, which came from the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. The Simon paper went one attribute further, though.

Key to the findings of the Simon paper was the fact that its scenario includes the purchase of four items. It also made the assumption that buying these online would result in four distinct deliveries. Given the diversity of items purchased, this certainly could be the case. It however does not need to be.

The fact is there are many opportunities to reduce the environmental impact associated with goods purchased online. There are also many opportunities to reduce the environmental impact associated with goods purchased at stores. It also must be noted that transportation and packaging are but two of the numerous aspects of product lifecycle impact.

What are these opportunities?

For companies that sell online, they can:

1. Provide incentives for customers to choose less impactful delivery options. “Free” shipping is here to stay, of course. Companies could provide reward points or other inducements for customers to choose the four to five day option instead of the two-day or overnight.
2. Provide incentives for customers to return more sparingly. As much as a third of online purchases are returned. The environmental impact associated with the returns was a significant factor in the Simon scenario and those examined by MIT. Again, there is an opportunity here for reward points or other inducements.
3. Get serious about tackling excessive packaging. As the New York Times recently reported, “4 million tons of containerboard were produced in 2014 in the United States, with e-commerce companies among the fastest-growing users.” Let’s deal with this.

For companies that set-up physical stores:

1. Invest in increasing public transportation options for your locations.
2. Increase the energy efficiency of your operations. Upgrading lighting and HVAC systems are a good place to start. Join the many other retailers hosting EDF Climate Corps fellows to undertake this type of work.
3. Explore on-sight generation of renewable energy. An apt example here is how Simon worked with EDF Climate Corps in 2015.

Both online and bricks and mortar retailers have ample opportunities to reduce the impact of the goods moving into their warehouses and stores. Retailers and their suppliers should:

1. Get the most out of every move. Combine and adapt packaging to maximize cube utilization.  A fuller move is a greener, as demonstrated by Walmart, Kraft and others.
2. Choose the most carbon-efficient transport mode. Ocean Spray Cranberries and many others are cutting carbon and costs with this approach.
3. Collaborate with other freight shippers. Colgate, Kimberly Clark and CVS are showing the way here.

The EDF Green Freight Handbook is a solid resource for companies needed to get a start on these types of actions.

The world is complex, which is good news because this complexity gives us choices. I’m choosing to focus on how to manage these complexities to improve our environment and economy. I’d love to have you join me; the only requirement is to leave the online vs in-store mind-set at the door.

Follow Jason Mathers on Twitter: @jasonmathers

 

By MM Harvey

Have you ever looked at the tag on your power supply and wondered what all those symbols meant? Many of them represent a voluntary consensus standard designed to protect the safety and health of the user.

Since we believe these types of standards can serve a valuable purpose, we wanted to explain why and how we make the decision to participate – and why we and other NGOs recently withdrew from one such effort by NSF International, funded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).

Consensus Standards

Put simply, a voluntary consensus standard means a relevant and balanced group of stakeholders got together and reached agreement on how to do something voluntarily and consistently that serves national needs.

For example, NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking Water System Components sets health effects criteria for many water system components such as pipes and faucets. Such standards, overseen by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), can create assurance that might otherwise require regulation.

As you’ll read below, the ANSI due process guidance for consensus standards require balance in the range of viewpoints considered. EDF increasingly finds itself invited to represent the public interest point of view.

Criteria for Participation

EDF will generally participate if (1) the standard is designed to solve a meaningful health, safety or sustainability problem, and (2) the process is likely to result in a standard that is truly a consensus.

Voluntary consensus standards are typically designed to advance important business objectives, which may not always be aligned with EDF’s goals. When asked to participate in standard development, we consider the following:

• Are the anticipated scope of the standard and problem(s) to be addressed clearly defined?
• Does the standard tackle a problem that EDF has identified as important? A process designed to institutionalize the status quo or that blocks needed regulations with an unenforceable alternative are not acceptable.
• Participation means investing in solving the problem. Do we have the expertise and capacity to take on the issue?

NSF sought to develop a new standard to guide how safety determinations on food additives should be made so they qualify for an exemption in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and asked EDF to participate. The exemption deals with substances that are “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS).

Currently, FDA has interpreted the law to mean FDA’s approval or review of chemicals used as food ingredients, food contact substances, or to process food is not required. This lack of oversight is a controversial issue, and one EDF has prioritized for action.

Process is Paramount

Even if the substance of the proposed standard is important, EDF may find that the process to develop that standard is unlikely to result in a true consensus of all stakeholders.

The ANSI guidance on essential due process requirements is a useful tool for assessing the fairness of a standard development process. If both the spirit and substance of the guidance are followed, we are much more likely to see the process as fair. Key elements include:

• Openness: All persons directly and materially affected by the standard must be able to participate. EDF’s is only one perspective. Just as the business community is diverse, so is the community that promotes health, safety, environmental protection, and sustainability. EDF can’t represent all of those perspectives. If the process starts with a draft standard already developed and vetted by one interest group, we question the openness to changes.
• Lack of dominance: No single interest category, individual or organization dominates. ANSI generally limits organizations to one member. We pay special attention to the source of funding and potential conflicts of interest of the participants.
• Balance: The members have a balance of interests. For health and safety standards, this means members of the public interest or regulatory communities represent about one-third of voting members. If the federal regulatory agency that manages the issue under discussion does not participate as a member or active observer, we interpret this as a lack of confidence in the process.
• Coordination and harmonization: The organization that is managing the process and the chair must have a positive track record on managing a true consensus process.
• Notification: The draft documents need to be publicly available for comment. For EDF, this means the publication drafts are broadly disseminated in public fora accessible to all stakeholders at no charge. A charge for the final document is not uncommon.
• Consideration of views and objections: Concerns raised by voting members, observers and public commenters deserve full consideration and a written response.

There are no bright lines. Good faith efforts can be poorly initiated. Sometimes corrections can be made and the process salvaged, sometimes not.

In the case of NSF and GRAS, we did not see how the process could align with the ANSI guidance, and as a result, we withdrew.

To be clear, voluntary consensus standards can help institutionalize positive change. However, when EDF sees a standard that purports to be a ‘consensus’ yet held only to the form and not the substance of ANSI’s due process requirements, we may actively discourage that standard’s use by business. That’s what public interest groups do – look out for the public, including the business community.

We hope clarifying EDF’s approach can be useful to those considering the development of such standards.

By Jason Mathers

The U.S. has put in place well-designed policies to cut climate pollution, and, with adopted and proposed policies, the nation’s 2025 climate reduction goals are within reach.  However, we are not there yet, and important work remains.

Big trucks have a critical contribution to make in cutting emissions now and well into the future. Cost-effective technologies are available to significantly reduce fuel use. Conversely, if we don’t take common sense steps today to cut climate-destabilizing emissions from this sector, climate emissions are projected to rise by approximately 15 percent by 2040. This is particularly problematic when you consider that the nation must reduce carbon emissions by at least 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 to prevent severe, potentially catastrophic, levels of climate change. Without further action to cut emissions from heavy-trucks, the sector would consume nearly 40 percent of our national 2050 emissions budget – a level that is clearly not sustainable.

The good news is that there is much that can be done to reduce emissions from trucks while also saving money; this year we have a unique opportunity to get started. As EPA Administrator McCarthy recently noted, finalizing new greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for heavy-duty vehicles is a priority in 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Given the combination of environmental and economic benefits that strong GHG standards will provide, many leading companies have already shown public support. PepsiCo and Walmart – two of the largest trucking fleets in the U.S. — support strong standards. General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, IKEA and many other companies that rely on trucking support strong standards. Innovative manufacturers support strong standards.

So, where do we go from here?

The draft proposal issued jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) in June 2015 is a good step, particularly because it maintains a sound, enforceable structure of separate engine and vehicle standards. However, the proposal leaves significant emission reductions on the table, specifically in its engine standard.

The first generation of heavy truck fuel efficiency standards required engines to reduce fuel use and emissions by 6% from 2010 to 2017, or roughly 1% per year. The current draft would require reductions of only 4.2% from 2017 through 2030. Nearly all of this progress occurs between 2021 and 2024. Between 2025 and 2030 these standards increase by only 0.5%.  The hill we need to climb to achieve our 2050 emissions goals is steep enough without losing critical time to such nominal progress.

We can do more.

• The EPA and DOT should strengthen the heavy-duty greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards to reflect the current state of technology, which can reduce new truck fuel consumption by 40% by model year 2025 beyond 2010 levels. This would reduce greenhouse gases by 160 million tons annually in 2035 – an increase of 33% beyond the agencies’ current proposal – and deliver greater future reductions.

• Finalizing stronger standards today will deliver more than just near-term emissions reductions. Trucks are long-lived assets. Some trucks manufactured in 2025 will still be on the road well into the middle of this century. The trucks we put on the road in 2030 will impact our ability to meet 2050 targets – and to avoid catastrophic climate change.

• Stronger standards also enable a virtuous cycle of improvement. A higher bar for these next standards will drive additional investments in research and development and expedite market entry of the next generation of solutions. This, in turn, drives the innovation we will need to enable this sector to contribute to achieving our 2050 targets. All while creating an annual economic benefit of $50 billion dollars.

The savings potential we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg. As an executive with the Volvo Group – a leading global producer of heavy-trucks — recently highlighted, “there are no real limits” to our technical ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from trucks.  Our limitations are societal choices.

When it comes to trucks, we know that much greater emission savings than have been proposed are eminently reasonable. We know more protective standards are readily within reach – one of the largest truck makers created a truck that gets 12.2 MPG and another leading manufacturer and engine company teamed-up to create a 10.7 MPG truck.

These breakthroughs and others have come through the Department of Energy’s SuperTruck program — a leading public-private partnership that has delivered impressive results over the past decade and is investing another $80 million to develop more fuel saving solutions. Included among its current research investments are a medium-duty plug-in hybrid vehicle powertrain that reduces fuel consumption by 50%; a class 6 plug in hybrid delivery truck that reduces fuel consumption by 50%; and a class 6 delivery truck with a scalable, innovative, lightweight, low-cost, and commercially-viable plug-in electric drive system that improves fuel economy by 100%.

Here’s hoping the EPA and DOT, recognizing the clear potential of existing and emerging technology, will finalize the protective standards we need to cut truck pollution farther, faster, strengthen our economy and achieve U.S. climate goals.

Follow @jasonmathers

 

By Tom Murray

At COP21, the governments of almost 200 nations spoke with one voice to fight climate change. Global corporations played a critical role in making this breakthrough moment possible. Now it’s more important than ever that US business leaders continue to lead, sending a powerful message to the world about our commitment to a thriving, clean energy future.

So what can forward-thinking companies do to show leadership on climate and position their firms to succeed in the low-carbon future? Here are three ways that corporate leaders can step up their sustainability efforts in 2016:

1. Set public, science-based emission reduction goals that extend beyond your operations and into your supply chains

Companies around the world are increasing their climate leadership and ambition. Announcing big numbers is no longer enough. Greenhouse gas (GHG) targets must be based on what science tells us is required to limit warming and stabilize the climate.

One major corporation that has actively engaged its supply chain is Walmart. Working closely with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the world’s largest retailer exceeded its 5-year goal and reduced 28 million metric tons of GHG from its global supply chain and product life cycles. EDF was on the ground, providing the science and uncovering the GHG hotspots in Walmart’s supply chain. By sending the right demand signals, Walmart was able to engage its vast network of suppliers to unlock innovation and drive emission reductions, proving that big goals drive big innovation.

In addition, Kellogg has announced it plans to cut GHG emissions by 65% across its own operations, and for the first time, work with suppliers to cut supply chain emissions by 50% by 2050.

Leading companies recognise that today’s environmental challenges are too big to tackle on their own. Taking a systems-approach means looking beyond the four walls of your company, collaborating with key supply chain partners, and sending a clear demand signal for sustainable products and practices across your supply chain.

2. Incorporate a price on carbon into business planning

According to CDP, the international non-for-profit organisation, corporate use of an internal price on carbon nearly tripled between 2014 and 2015, to 435 companies, and more than 500 additional companies plan to implement a price in the next two years. BP chief executive Bob Dudley recently took a public stance, calling on governments to adopt carbon pricing as the most effective way to transition to a low-carbon economy, saying, “It incentivises greater energy efficiency and energy saving. It incentivises lower carbon choices – like replacing coal with natural gas in power generation, as well as replacing fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear energy. And it incentivizes investment in R&D to improve energy efficiency and discover the next generation of low carbon technologies.”

Leading consumer brands such as Colgate-Palmolive, Campbell’s and global industrials like General Motors have assigned an internal price to their carbon emissions because it’s a smart way to plan for the clean energy economy and help achieve GHG reduction targets.

3. Align your company’s public policy advocacy with its sustainability goals and operations

Voluntary efforts to address sustainability within company operations have made a difference and will continue to be a critical pathway for innovation. But this alone is no longer sufficient to meet the size and scale of the challenges we face. Businesses must take the next leadership step – helping to shape and support the smart regulatory and policy changes required to preserve the natural systems that people, communities and companies need to thrive.

Today’s corporate leaders have an opportunity to weigh in on regional and national policies that actively address future business risks and supply chain disruptions from climate change. Those brands that are already stepping up and publicly supporting smart climate policy are sending a clear signal to investors, suppliers, customers and employees that growing the business sustainably is a priority.

There can no longer be a disconnect between a company’s sustainability practices and its policy support. By aligning internal sustainability strategy with external engagement in public policy, corporate leaders have an opportunity to rewrite the playbook on how businesses can thrive while protecting the planet. Now is the time for new innovation, new thinking and new leadership.

Follow Tom Murray on Twitter: @tpmurray

Further reading:

• 3 Climate Leadership Openings Corporate America Can't Afford to Miss
• The Business-Policy Nexus: The Next Frontier for Corporate Sustainability Leadership

By Aileen Nowlan

Infrared footage of the leak from the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility

After more than four months of spewing potent methane pollution, the massive Aliso Canyon gas leak has finally been plugged. But now the state of California and the utility that owns the site, SoCalGas, are left with the responsibility of ensuring a disaster like this doesn’t happen again.

While Aliso Canyon has captured the attention of the nation, it’s important to remember that there are smaller—and far more prevalent—leaks happening throughout the country’s oil and gas supply chain every day. In fact, those emissions add up to more than 7 million metric tons of methane pollution every year.  That equals over $1 billion worth of wasted natural gas at 2015 prices.

Map of leaks around the Porter Ranch area

Methane leaks aren’t just wasteful—they have real impacts on communities. In Wyoming, for example, oil and gas pollution has driven up respiratory illness and smog levels to rival those in famously polluted Los Angeles. In California, residents living near the Aliso Canyon leak have already experienced headaches and vomiting; the long-term health impacts of their exposure to these leaks are a big unknown.

While solutions to detect leaks—like the infrared cameras that made the Aliso Canyon geyser visible to the world—are readily available today, a group of technology developers and oil and gas companies are collaborating with EDF to develop even more cost-effective–and automated–technologies to dramatically speed up leak detection.

Scattered, aging infrastructure

Part of the problem is that much of the oil and gas infrastructure around the country is showing its age. The well that failed at Aliso Canyon was 63 years old. That’s no surprise—California has been an oil and gas producer for over a hundred years, and that state alone has over 50,000 wells. With wells, storage fields, and gathering and boosting facilities around the country, we expect aging oil and gas infrastructure will only make the problem worse over time.

Some of the biggest methane leaks, called super-emitters, are elusive and unpredictable, often occurring as a result of operating conditions like tank venting. These leaks are relatively easy to find and cheap to fix if–and this is a big if–robust monitoring and repair practices are in place.

Up to now, periodic monitoring has been the industry norm, but leaks can appear at any time and continue unabated until the next inspection. Just imagine how much more methane pollution could be cut if there were a way to continuously monitor for leaks.

A partnership to find and stop leaks faster

That insight inspired EDF, in partnership with eight oil and gas companies, to develop and launch the Methane Detectors Challenge, an initiative to bring next-generation, cost-effective methane monitoring technologies from the lab to the marketplace. With continuous detection systems, companies will be able to identify and address leaks almost as soon as they begin.

Over the past two years, innovators have come forward with solutions, and our panel of technical and industry experts put those solutions through extensive independent lab and outdoor testing.

This initiative has resulted in front-runner detection systems that are accurate at distances of over 80 feet from a methane source. They are designed to be installed at an oil or gas facility and allow remote monitoring—the systems are self-powered and communicate via a cellular connection or the facility’s local control system. Deployed in the right location on a site, one or two systems could provide 24-hour real-time methane monitoring and alerts.

Some MDC partners are moving to refine these systems in the field, potentially in Colorado, North Dakota and Texas. Over the next couple of months, we will ensure the systems can differentiate between on-site from off-site methane, withstand harsh weather conditions and provide fast, accurate alerts.

That’s a solution that SoCalGas—facing potentially billions in losses from the Aliso Canyon disaster—may now wish they had last fall when the leak began.

Luckily, efforts by leading companies and innovators are helping to make the best possible solutions available – including continuous monitoring technologies, like those emerging from the Methane Detectors Challenge –to protect communities and the environment from the threat of methane pollution. As detecting methane leaks becomes faster and cheaper than it’s ever been, the industry and the regulators overseeing it have the tools they need to ratchet down the hidden risks and waste from oil and gas methane.

Further reading:

• The Methane Detectors Challenge
• How Fast is Fast Enough to Solve a Challenge Like Methane?

By Tom Neltner

Consumers demand safe food, and they prioritize purchasing from brands that they trust to be safe. The food industry knows this and wisely makes safety a top priority. But consumers’ definition of safety is changing, and the food industry needs to evolve its practices to keep pace with consumer demand.

Customers have traditionally defined safety as “free of harmful elements.” Last year, more than thirty-six percent of consumers said chemicals in their food was their top food safety concern. A new report from Deloitte, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) found that definition of safety has expanded — that consumers consider safety both a short-term (e.g., toxin free) as well as a long-term (e.g., no carcinogens) concern and, as a result, it aligns with their health and wellness concerns.

This expanded definition of safety includes attributes such as clear and accurate labeling; clear information on ingredients, both label and sourcing; fewer ingredients, processing and no artificial additives; and better nutritional content.

The message is clear: Retailers and food manufacturers need to adapt, or they risk losing market share to competitors who meet evolving customer demands with safer ingredients and improved transparency.

Evolving Safety Expectations

“Companies should broaden their definition of ‘safety’ to manage and satisfy an expanded set of consumer expectations.”

The report identified two groups of consumers – evolving and traditional – that were split roughly 50/50 and equally distributed across regions, age groups and income levels. Traditional consumers focus on price, taste and convenience. Evolving consumers make purchases with five additional drivers: health and wellness, safety, social impact, experience and transparency. From the report, evolving consumers are more likely to be millennials, wealthy and west-coast dwelling. The five drivers above influence their purchase decisions across all product categories. However, they scrutinize freshly prepared meals, breakfast food, frozen meals and canned goods the most.

Smart companies will adjust to these evolving consumer expectations as soon as possible. While the criterion ‘free of harmful elements’ is still cited by 62 percent of consumers, the rise of evolving consumers has introduced the four new attributes mentioned earlier, which are broken out in the chart below.

The report also warns that “companies still operating under the old definition of safety will likely feel ongoing pressure to address consumer concerns in a way that meets this evolving, long-term need.”

To Consumers, Transparency is Fundamental

For the evolving consumer, Deloitte, FMI and GMA found that product and company transparency is essential. Transparency positively impacts consumers’ views of product safety, especially of the four new purchase drivers shown in the chart. The report noted that transparency “is especially important in today’s environment, where consumers are significantly concerned that manufacturers would put profit over transparency and are distrustful of large food companies.”

The Food Industry is Responding…

On the transparency front, GMA launched its Smart Label initiative to help consumers access information on ingredients in products. What’s not clear yet is whether Smart Label will provide enough information for consumers, a question raised by six senators in January. They sent GMA a letter raising concerns about “significant anti-consumer loopholes.” GMA’s response, and reactions by others, can be found here.

In 2015 leading food manufacturers and restaurants committed to reformulating tens of billions of dollars in iconic brands, which we reported last fall. That trend continues this year with Mars’ commitment to reformulate all of its brands to remove synthetic colors by 2021. These efforts still trail those of food retailers including Kroger, Whole Foods and Trader Joes, which removed artificial flavors and synthetic colors from their private label brands several years earlier.

…But It’s Not Enough

However, the focus on removing ingredients that are or sound artificial to consumers continues to miss the mark. It tells consumers what they want to hear, but it doesn’t actually address the heart of their concerns. Just because something sounds natural and is legal does not mean it is safe.

Many ingredients – as well as the chemicals used to manufacture food or packaging – have never been reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safety due to the ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ legal loophole in the law that regulates food additives. FDA, the agency that consumers rely on to ensure food additives are safe, has acknowledged that it cannot vouch for the safety of additives that it does not review.

There’s a simple solution.

Before a product can make it to the shelf, retailers and brand owners must require that all ingredients used in the food be reviewed by FDA. If FDA hasn’t reviewed an ingredient, manufacturers should keep it out of any recipe until a review is completed, usually a six-month process.

The question we should all be asking is… why isn’t this simple assurance of ingredient safety already happening?

Further reading:

• Who is Promising What on Food Additives?
• What's in Your Product's Flavor? Here's Why You Should Find Out.

By Ben Ratner

As oil and gas leaders converge on Houston for the year’s largest industry conference, CERA Week, falling oil and gas prices are understandably top of mind and a cause for concern for the industry. But there is another decline story underway in industry, one that poses a risk to the future of hydrocarbons in a carbon constrained world – a story of falling trust.

While today’s $30 oil price is disruptive in the short-term, new information on the very low level of public trust in the oil and gas industry should prompt concern from executives and investors about possible longer-term disruption to companies’ social license to operate.

The Industry’s Public Trust Problem

Recent polling conducted by KRC Research for EDF found that a mere 29 percent of Americans trust oil and gas companies to operate responsibly. Strikingly, even among Republicans, the trust rate is under 40 percent.

Digging deeper into the numbers, just 15 percent of Americans trust the oil and gas industry to be accurate in disclosing how much pollution they cause.

So what do these results mean?

They mean that a basic ingredient essential to the long-term viability of any industry – societal trust – is sorely lacking. When 197 nations agree to an ambitious framework and goal to cut greenhouse gas pollution, but very few Americans trust oil and gas operators to even disclose their pollution accurately, a collision course develops.

An Opportunity for Building Trust

Methane – the main component of natural gas and a powerful short-term climate forcer – is not the only environmental problem associated with the oil and gas industry. But because methane has such serious implications for natural gas’ reputation as a clean, lower carbon energy fuel source, it has become a referendum on the ability of industry to operate responsibly and deliver fuels that facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy.

A few corporate leaders have stepped forward to act on methane, but industry’s response to date has fallen far short. That’s why even by conservative estimates, the industry here in the U.S. continues to release methane into the atmosphere at a rate upwards of 7 million metric tons annually, creating the same 20-year climate impact as 160 coal-fired power plants. And globally, annual methane emissions from oil and gas pack a short-term climate punch equivalent to the carbon dioxide pollution from 40 percent of global coal combustion.

The Path Forward

The path to raising commodity prices is complicated, and is well beyond the control of any one operator. But there is a path to raising trust. Oil and gas executives can boost the reputation and long-term standing of their companies and industry writ large, by showing the public, regulators and investors that they’re serious about addressing their methane problem.

• Enhance disclosure – A lack of information breeds distrust. So in light of the trust deficit, it is not surprising to find that methane disclosure by companies is inadequate. As EDF found in a report released last month, none of the leading 65 upstream and midstream players in the U.S. disclose any quantitative target to reduce methane emissions. Boosting disclosure is low-hanging fruit for operators, and a way for leaders to build awareness of actions they are already taking to reduce methane emissions.

• Support rules – As Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein once said, oil and gas companies that get facilities permitted in the absence of methane rules are achieving “a very hollow victory”. Supporting rules is an investment in ensuring the public that a level playing field exists with climate and health protections they can believe in. The long-term cost to industry if it sustains regulatory hostility is the real one for executives worry about.

• Encourage scientific study – Scores of studies in the U.S. have improved national understanding of emissions, unlocked waste reduction opportunities, and provided a basis for data-driven regulations that work. The state of methane measurement globally is much less mature. ENI, Total and BG Group committed in Paris to partner with EDF to advance methane measurement internationally, and more companies have the opportunity to support these efforts.

• Adopt best practices – Instituting best practices for methane management is a good springboard to demonstrate responsibility, engage local stakeholders, inspire investor confidence, and set a foundation for compliance with the rising wave of methane and air pollution regulations. Global companies should look closely at the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (affiliated with the United Nations) as an emerging opportunity with a set of resources and protocols that can facilitate best practice adoption and the kind of transparency that can help build trust. And other multi-stakeholder opportunities exist, like the Methane Detectors Challenge to catalyze faster, cheaper methane detection systems.

Speculation abounds on the shape and speed of the oil price recovery, but for the long term, a trust recovery is just as essential for shoring up oil and gas’ role in a changing world. Methane management is a key place to focus and should remain top of mind for the C-suite.

Further reading:

• Methane Emissions are Risky Business for Investors