By Alisha Staggs

By Alisha Staggs, Project Manager, Corporate Partnerships, and Ben Young, Intern, Corporate Partnerships

Over the last 12 months, we’ve seen a number of companies commit to reducing deforestation in their supply chain. At last count, 273 companies have made some sort of deforestation pledge across a multitude of agricultural commodities.

Yet, we often find ourselves questioning the sincerity of these claims. Are these companies simply trying to save face? Surely any action to avoid deforestation will be costly, and companies aren’t known for taking on added expenses voluntarily. So what’s in it for them?

The answer: a lot. Here are the top 5 factors that catalyze corporate leaders into taking global forest loss seriously:

1. Reputational risk. Roughly a decade ago, Greenpeace launched major campaigns against companies whose products contribute to deforestation. With good evidence, they charged that demand for agricultural products was causing unprecedented forest loss in regions around the globe. Over several years, Greenpeace uncovered how soy (“Eating the Amazon”) and beef (“Slaughtering the Amazon”) production by major international corporations were driving deforestation in the Amazon. The resulting flurry of news articles and negative press led to a number of new corporate sourcing policies, and consumer boycotts for those companies that failed to take swift action.With an ear to the loudest NGO’s, consumers are demanding change. New tools are making it even easier for consumers to support the brands and companies that align with their values. For example, both the Forest500 and Supply-Change track companies’ deforestation commitments and their progress. Intangible assets like reputation and brand equity can make up a significant share of a company’s valuation, so protecting them is a bottom line consideration.
2. Supply chain risk. Studies show that high rates of deforestation risk the long-term health of the Amazon; deforestation reduces the ability of the forest to manage drought and other stressors. Major climate shifts can have serious consequences for agricultural supply chains, like billions in lost revenue in the case of coffee retailers in Brazil. As a result, companies need to consider the impacts of deforestation on their ability to access raw materials and maintain revenue streams in the future.
3. Legal liability. In some regions, companies that are unable to track their products could be breaking the law. For example, the Brazilian government levied fines and filed charges against a number of beef processors in 2009 for supporting the purchase of cattle from deforested lands, even though they themselves were not directly responsible.
4. Investor demand. Major investors see climate change and deforestation as significant risks to future profits. Activist investors have found success pushing companies to adopt stringent deforestation policies. Those that fail to react have faced divestment. Banks are actively seeking to finance sustainable agriculture to reduce pressures on forests. Companies with their head in the sand will be caught unaware and will miss opportunities.
5. Pending regulation. State and federal governments around the world are taking swift action to protect forests by increasing enforcement and tightening regulations. As one investor describes, “We need companies to be aware of and prepared for regulatory changes to tackle unsustainable practices. For instance, a clamp-down on illegal deforestation or a sudden policy change on permits or licenses means that companies will face significant risks to security of supply and input costs if they are not appropriately prepared.”

We hear these arguments directly from a number of corporate leaders who are poised to direct their companies to drive the swift change necessary to halt global forest loss.

EDF is actively engaged in helping companies identify and quantify the multitude of benefits that come from protecting forests. In a future post, we will focus on our work making sure that their commitments translate into actual improvements in deforestation on the ground.

Also of interest:

• Quiet But Admirable Commitments to End Deforestation
• McDonald’s New Super-Sized Deforestation Commitment: 4 Things You Should Know

By Ben Ratner

There is often staunch disagreement between industry and policymakers on how to address pollution. But an event last week convening business leaders, federal and state officials and other stakeholders showed that there’s at least one idea on which they can agree and work together: the feasibility of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

Here are four perspectives shared at this event that give me hope we can solve the large, but addressable problem of methane pollution from the oil and gas industry if we take a fact-based, collaborative approach. That would be great news in itself, and powerful precedent for tackling the broader climate opportunities ahead.

Environmental regulations are not a zero sum game. Martha Rudolph, director of Environmental Programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, was on the front lines when Colorado proposed the nation’s first direct regulation of methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. At the event, she shared her state’s powerful example of unlikely allies coming together to protect climate and communities in a way that makes business sense.

Instead of tales of industry resistance, she shared a history of business and other stakeholders coming together with state policy makers to formulate and implement cost-effective regulations that will cut 100,000 tons of methane emissions – the climate equivalent of taking over 1.8 million cars off the road. Rudolph reports that the rules have not been challenged in court, and to date, her office had not heard complaints about compliance being difficult or costly . Noble, Anadarko, and Encana supported strong rules at the front end, and even the industry trade associations have rolled up their sleeves and set up trainings to ease rule implementation.

Federal regulators are constantly listening to and learning from industry and community concerns. At Tuesday’s event, Joe Goffman, EPA’s associate assistant administrator, gave us a window into EPA’s outreach to industry and communities ahead of and during the methane and other rule makings. He shared how smart regulations that set a basic floor, combined with industry action to push the ceiling ever higher, can be complementary, saying, “it’s the role of the EPA…. to formulate the rules of the game. But it’s really up tothe stakeholder community, and above all the business community, to find the strategies, the initiatives, and ultimately the innovations to make the outcome we’re going for.”

Rather than assuming they know best, Goffman and former EPA Assistant Administrator Bob Perciasepe shared the appreciation EPA officials have for the comment period underway right now, with Perciasepe even calling this time of stakeholder engagement the “golden moment of a regulatory process.”

Leading companies recognize the need to raise the bar. Companies sometimes fight against regulations, or sit tight and do the bare minimum required for compliance. However, Southwestern Energy’s officer Mark Boling advocated for aggressive industry action to cut methane emissions from today’s infrastructure, and left no doubt that we can get going with proven, cost effective technologies.

Boling affirmed that with industry leadership, the White House’s 40 to 45 percent oil and gas methane reduction goal is possible, and praised programs such as DOE’s MONITOR program that work to unleash the power of technological innovation to create real-time methane detection to cut emissions even further. And he echoed the value of industry working collaboratively with government, praising EPA as “very good at listening to [our] concerns and also very good at looking at what the science is telling us.”

Investment decisions in energy policy are not black and white. Rather than calling for fossil fuel divestment or defending the status quo of under-regulation, Brian Rice explained that his organization, CalSTRS, has a responsibility as an investor representing California teachers to “encourage companies to be more attentive to environmental issues” and specifically, “do what we can to get companies to reduce emissions.” CalSTRS is asking oil and gas companies to clean up their operations, which includes constructively engaging with EPA’s methane rulemaking process, as well as adopting best practices.

In addition to preventing climate risk and improving corporate reputation, investors want companies to address methane pollution because there’s an economic argument for encouraging them to get more product –natural gas, which is mostly methane – to the end user to increase revenues.

There are many private and public sector leaders out there who share the perspectives and constructive approaches of those who took the stageat last week’s event. These examples show we can chart a new, pragmatic path for achieving methane reductions and improve not only our climate and air, but the climate of how we talk to each other.

Photo source: The Hill

By Christina Wolfe

The deadline to provide public comment on new greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for large highway trucks and buses—jointly proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)—is quickly approaching. Overall, the proposed new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards have been heralded by shippers and others. And a majority of Americans — 71 percent — favor requiring truck manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of large trucks because it would reduce fuel costs, with much of the savings passed on to consumers.

One of the most interesting developments, however, has been how innovative companies are stepping forward to remind EPA and NHTSA that the technologies needed to meet the proposed standards are already available and the agencies should go further to drive the deployment of more advanced technologies.

What’s being said?

It’s critical to consider the perspective of the companies that are actively developing and deploying advanced transportation technologies – these are the companies that will help lead the way towards cleaner and more efficient transportation. These companies are calling on the agencies to finalize a stronger program that will advance innovative technologies and drive down costs.

• Achates Power: “We support the EPA’s intent to establish standards based not only on currently available technologies, but also based on technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed. We view the proposed engine standard, however, as too modest – so modest that it may not achieve the agencies’ explicit objective of spurring advanced technology deployment.” “We propose an engine standard requiring a 15 percent decrease in fuel consumption and emissions. That goal is not only attainable with the technology we have already demonstrated but is, in fact, our plan.”
• Orange EV: “We support the efforts by EPA and NHTSA to address greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency in this proposed rule, but encourage the agencies to adopt stronger standards and full implementation as soon as possible. Targeting incremental improvements by 2027 may be slower than achievable.” “Orange EV has been driving innovation and sustainability in the transportation industry, now filling customer orders and deploying zero-emission, battery powered trucks.”
• Parker Hannifin Corporation: “It is important to note that the 40% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions in Class 6-8 vehicles proposed in the new rule is not something for the future. It is happening now. Parker has developed and is actively marketing a hydraulic hybrid medium- and heavy-duty vehicle transmission that is currently achieving and surpassing the 40% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions sought in the new rule.”
• Prevok Solutions Company, the exclusive US sales and market development entity for Smith Electric Vehicles: “[Prevok] strongly supports the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles as proposed by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In fact, we encourage the agencies to adopt stronger standards and full implementation by 2024.” “Rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA should serve to help the US thrive economically and sustainably, while advancing clean technologies and driving innovation.”
• Transportation Power: “We are demonstrating today that zero-emissions transportation technology in the freight sector is viable, achievable, and even preferable for fleets to traditional technologies.” “The rule, as is, would lock the status quo for technology until 2030. Please consider strengthening the proposed standards and revising the timeline for full implementation to 2024.”
• Momentum Wireless Power: “Strong fuel efficiency standards are good for American manufacturing because they stimulate innovation, making U.S. businesses more competitive globally. Through partnerships with the Department of Energy, major manufacturers have proven fuel economy ratings of over 12 mpg are achievable for combination tractors through advanced technologies.”

Other leaders in sustainable transportation have emphasized that the standards should “further support zero emission technologies” (US Hybrid, Long Beach public testimony), and in fact, Transportation Power drove to one of the public hearings on the proposed standards in a zero emission Class 8 heavy-duty truck to showcase that solutions for vocational trucks are available today.

Why more robust truck efficiency standards are being heralded

The proposed new standards will build on the first-ever Phase 1 fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards finalized in 2011 for model year 2014-2018 heavy-duty trucks and buses. As proposed, the standards will provide significant benefits to consumers and businesses by reducing transportation costs and cutting harmful climate and air pollution.

However, the performance standards proposed do not reflect – and mobilize —  the full suite of cost-effective innovative technologies available to improve efficiency across the heavy-duty fleet. Instead, the standards will lock in today’s technologies until 2030 – meaning we’ll have to wait another 15 years before we can accelerate advanced technologies. And we know the difference fifteen years can make (in 2000, for example, trucks were 90+ percent dirtier than they are today, and barely half of the US population was online, compared to 84 percent today!).

Strong standards unleash potential of these and other companies to innovative and bring new solutions to market.  As these solutions scale, these companies will grow and create more, high-quality jobs. That’s why so many innovative companies are calling on the US government to seize this opportunity to finalize standards that drive American innovation and ingenuity.

EDF agrees with these innovators that more can be done, and we urge EPA and NHTSA to finalize robust standards that provide the economic, environmental and public health benefits needed to protect our communities and families.

By Tom Murray

The combination of the Pope’s visit, Climate Week NYC and today’s news of China planning a national cap and trade program has made this a huge week in terms of support for climate action. But it’s also been a week of great sustainability news coming out of corporate America, and I’m excited to see the momentum building.

• Companies publicly stating aggressive, science-based sustainability goals? Check.
• Big brands supporting the Clean Power Plan? Check.
• Business committing to set an internal price on carbon? Check.
• Increasing commitment to sourcing 100% of energy from renewables? Check.

Like I said, it’s been a really good week. After 18 years as a sustainability advocate, I’m encouraged to see companies continuing to step up their leadership on climate— making public, science-based commitments and increasingly creating an environment where denial and delay by private and public sector leaders is no longer acceptable. Many of the companies who have made commitments, (this week, before this week, and hopefully leading into COP21), are demonstrating that tending one’s own sustainability garden is necessary but no longer sufficient—corporate leaders of today and tomorrow need to collaborate with each other for greater impact and assert public policy leadership as well.

Staples leads on Clean Power Plan

Solar panels installed at Staples corporate headquarters (Credit: Staples)

In addition to joining a sign-on letter with over 350 companies to support the Clean Power Plan, Staples VP of Environmental Affairs Mark Buckley authored an op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer — sharing not only what Staples has been doing to tackle its own climate change impacts, but digging into how state energy policies can help or hurt its ability to meet those goals.

Previously, Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards helped Staples and other Ohio-based companies invest in clean energy and making their facilities in the state more efficient.

But when Ohio froze both standards this year, it jeopardized companies’ ability to finance these kinds of projects. In defending the Clean Power Plan, Buckley praised the flexibility it offers states on implementation, stating it will “foster much-needed policies that will give employers and businesses like Staples greater predictability in both our cost and choice of energy.”

Siemens commits to be carbon-neutral by 2030

Siemens also stepped forward this week with an op-ed in the New York Times. In it, Siemens Chief Executive Jeff Kaeser committed the company to cut its carbon footprint in half in the next five years, and to make itself carbon neutral by 2030. Siemens aims to get there by replacing fleet vehicles worldwide with more-efficient models, increasing the energy efficiency, investing its own clean energy generation, and buying clean power.

The key point here is that companies are taking the long view on their carbon exposure and making investments to reduce them – which, in Siemens’ case, totals $110 million that its expects to pay back within 5 years and offer $20 million in annual savings afterward.

Momentum building for a price on carbon

The number of companies setting an internal price on carbon tripled this year to 435, as reported recently by CDP; setting a carbon price is helping companies set a value on the external impacts of carbon emissions and better guide investments in projects to mitigate them. Big companies included in this year’s report include Enbridge, AkzoNobel, Hitachi Chemical Company, and National Grid. Further, CDP reports that 538 companies plan to use carbon pricing within the next two years.

Meanwhile, a recent World Bank report found that, since 2012, the number of carbon pricing schemes implemented or planned globally doubled, with 40 nations and 23 cities, states or regions using a carbon price. Existing schemes are now worth about $50 billion and represent 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions (or 7 billion tons of CO2).

Both reports are signals of a growing demand – and planning for – a price on carbon; forward-looking businesses are both looking to mitigate their own risks and want to send a signal to the parties negotiating in Paris that not only are they able to manage with a price on carbon, they’re already moving to do so.

Momentum is also building for renewables

This week, Amazon, DuPont, Equinix, Etsy, Intuit, Microsoft, Sealed Air, Starbucks, and Starwood all publicly signed onto the WWF and WRI Buyer’s Principles initiative that aims to make renewable energy easier for companies to procure at a large-scale. These companies join 32 other leading companies, in all representing a demand of more than 30 million MWh of renewable energy.

Also, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Salesforce, Starbucks, Steelcase, Voya Financial, and Walmart joined RE100, pledging to source 100% of their electricity from renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions and seize the business benefits.

RE100 is an ambitious global campaign led by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP, to engage, support and showcase influential businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity. When RE100 was launched one year ago at Climate Week NYC 2014, there were 13 original corporate partners  Now 36 major businesses from around the world have joined the campaign, including:  IKEA Group, Swiss Re, BT Group, Formula E, H&M, KPN, Nestlé, Philips, RELX Group, J. Safra Sarasin, Unilever and YOOX Group, UBS, and Royal DSM.

As we continue to plan for COP21 in Paris, we want to see this terrific momentum for climate leadership continue to build. And we need your help.  Here are some ways that leading companies can step up and lead the way to a thriving low carbon future:

• Ceres letters to Governors – Join over 365 other companies and investors who have shown their support for the Clean Power Plan.
• Sign on to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge – Voice your support for a strong Paris outcome and demonstrate ongoing commitment to climate action.
• Join the We Mean Business Coalition – and make corporate climate commitments leading up to the Paris talks.
• Play a role in increasing access to affordable renewable energy sources through the Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles.
• Commit to 100% renewable power through the RE100.

By Boma Brown-West

For a number of years in the environmental world, we’ve been able to talk about the public commitments companies are making – and achieving – with respect to impacts like greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. Lately, companies have begun to publicly discuss goals related to safer products, recognizing that safer chemicals are part of the sustainability conversation.

For example, in the food sector, companies have cracked opened the proverbial “kitchen door” and started to share with consumers what is not in their products. This glimpse into the food-making process comes in the form of public commitments made by more than 10 major food manufacturers and restaurants in 2015 alone to eliminate or reduce artificial colors and flavors. Similar activity is occurring elsewhere, like the electronics sector and personal care sector.

But, what is leadership when it comes to public commitments? Today, we tackle this question as part of our series on the leadership pillars for safer chemicals in the marketplace. In a nutshell, leadership on public commitment goes beyond a one-time publication of goals; it requires a company to make frequent, transparent communication about its safer chemicals journey. Three key actions companies can and should take:

1. Publish a corporate chemicals policy
2. Share progress and
3. Communicate the process

Of course, going public has its challenges, such as opening the door to criticism. But, good things happen as well when a company goes public with its goals and journey.

A company can rally its supporters inside the company and supply chain. It can find new allies in the media, business, and non-profit worlds. It can build consumer confidence in its brand. Finally, being open about goals and the subsequent journey helps a company succeed in its quest to meet those goals.

Today we've updated our Behind the Label website to delve further into the elements of leadership on public commitment and the associated hurdles and opportunities.

In addition to outlining what leadership on public commitment means, we've started tracking the commitments some companies are making, so those newer to the process have a sense of where to get started. We're beginning with the food sector, where grocers, restaurants and food manufacturers have become increasingly vocal about the food additives they are eliminating.

Further reading to help you get Behind the Label:

• The 5 Pillars of Leadership on Safer Chemicals
• A Blueprint for Safer Food Additives

By Ben Ratner

Since the president announced in January a national goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry nearly in half by 2025, an outpouring of voices has supported the move. Now, EPA has proposed rules to help meet that target, and we’ve seen another wave of support – everyone from editorial boards in the heart of oil and gas country to massive investors like California’s pension funds has recognized that the rules are a manageable, commonsense means for reducing methane pollution.

The one voice that’s been silent? The companies with the opportunity to adopt the proven, cost-effective technologies and services to not only reduce pollution but also prevent the waste of the very energy resource they’re producing. Now another voice has emerged to make the case directly to these companies that it’s worth constructively engaging in the rulemaking process: the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a group of shareholders dedicated to promoting environmentally and socially responsible corporate practices.

Several shareholders from ICCR’s coalition sent letters today to dozens of energy companies in which they invest, voicing their concern about the impact of methane emissions on the climate and public health. As You Sow, BCAM, Mercy Investments, Miller Howard, the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, Trillium Asset Management, and others made their case to companies whose shares they own, including some of the biggest names in the business, like Chesapeake Energy, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Kinder Morgan, and Valero.

Specifically, the investors asked the companies to file public comments on EPA’s proposed methane rules, sharing the companies’ data and experience with methane monitoring and management and providing perspective on how the methane rules can be designed to reduce emissions cost effectively. They also urged the companies to guide their powerful trade associations –which have been some of the most vocal opponents of the rules – to engage honestly and transparently in the rulemaking process.

Methane is a serious threat to our communities not just because of its powerful climate impact but also because it’s released along with harmful pollutants that threaten public health. ICCR sees unlimited methane pollution as “just the kind of unsustainable action that must be curbed in an effort to build a more just and healthy world,” and aims to reduce methane as part of its commitment to care for the earth for the sake of humanity.

But ICCR didn’t just urge companies to engage in the rulemaking out of a moral obligation – as investors, they also know it’s a smart business decision. As ICCR investors pointed out in their letters, the International Energy Association lists reducing methane as one of the top four policies that “could stop the growth in global energy-related emissions by the end of this decade at no net economic cost.”

We’ve seen real-world examples that the solutions for reducing methane can be employed to successfully reduce emissions, alongside business and job growth. In the year after the state of Colorado enacted rules directly regulating methane – the kind of strong rules we’d like to see from EPA – Weld County, the heart of the state’s drilling boom, had the country's highest job growth at about 16 percent. And after implementing technology to reduce methane emissions from its Wyoming operations, leading energy company Jonah Energy was able to significantly cut emissions over a five year period, saving $5 million in the process through captured gas and operational efficiencies, according to FLIR Systems, the manufacturer of the technology.

ICCR knows that good environmental policy can make good business sense, and private/public sector collaboration is a key to getting there.

We hope the companies ICCR investors reached out to today heed the call to constructively engage with EPA on the proposed methane rules and “show good faith and establish basic protective safeguards that will benefit the country and the industry itself.”

This post originally published on the EDF Energy Exchange blog.

Further reading:

• Game Time for Fixing The Natural Gas Industry’s Achilles Heel
• Investor Ranks Top $1.5 Trillion in Support of National Methane Standards

By David Festa

What comes to mind when you think of sustainable food production? If you’re like many Americans, you probably picture a local farmer’s market, celebrity-branded salad dressing or an organic farmer growing heirloom lettuces and free-range chickens.

Now, what comes to mind when you think of industrial food production? Do you envision acres of conventionally grown corn stretching as far as the eye can see? Giant feed lots? Factories that process food into “center aisle” products for the supermarket?

When we think about sustainable food production, most people don’t think about solutions coming from Big Business. Yet corporations have the potential to become our biggest ally in meeting SDG 12, the sustainability development goal set forth by the United Nations to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns by 2030.

Here’s why

Our need to eat poses serious threats to the natural systems that sustain us. Whether it’s small and organic or large and conventional, farming of both livestock and crops  already uses up nearly 40 percent of Earth’s non-ice surface and is responsible for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – more if you count the GHG emissions caused by deforestation, which has largely been driven by agricultural expansion. Agriculture also consumes 80 percent of the world’s freshwater supply and pollutes waterways with fertilizer and manure runoff.

Of all cropland planted, a relatively small portion is used to grow fruits and vegetables – the food we buy at local markets and grocery stores.

The majority of cropland is devoted to growing commodity crops such as corn, wheat, soy and palm oil – the stuff that goes to fatten up livestock or become ingredients in prepared foods like bread, soups, tofu, and other products like biofuel.

The environmental impact of commodity crops

As demand for these crops has risen, so too has their impact on the environment. Demand for palm oil, for example, has led to widespread deforestation in South America and Asia. Overuse of fertilizer, particularly on nitrogen-hungry grain crops, has contributed substantially to more than 400 dead zones worldwide, including the biggest one in the Gulf of Mexico.

Consumers can play a role in reducing demand for these crops by changing their diets to include more fruits and vegetables and less meat and processed foods. Governments also have a role to play. But corporations are in the best position to influence commodity cropping practices on the ground. After all, growers produce what the market wants, and business is driving the market.

How business is driving change

The good news is that corporations are starting to wake up. Companies are beginning to identify unsustainable agriculture as a business risk, and they’re shaking up their supply chains.

In Brazil and Indonesia, for example, companies that control the production of four commodities – more than 90 percent of soy purchases in the Amazon, around half of cattle slaughter in the Brazilian Amazon, and 96 percent of palm oil trade globally – have committed to stop deforestation.

Walmart, as part of its commitment to reduce 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain, (equivalent to taking 4.2 million cars off the road) has inspired 15 leading suppliers to source fertilizer-efficient grains. Fifteen may not sound like much, but together these companies represent 30 percent of the North American food and beverage market and include some pretty big names, like General Mills and Campbell’s Soup. Their commitment to meet Walmart’s mandate has produced a cascading effect, motivating at least one agricultural retailer – United Suppliers – to develop a fertilizer-efficiency and soil health initiative that promises to transform 10 million acres of farmland in the next five years.

And last year, several agribusinesses, insurance companies, and food retailers joined the newly established Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, marking the first time that corporations had a seat at the U.N.’s table to discuss sustainable agriculture.

By 2050, the world’s population is projected to rise to 9 billion, which will require a 60-percent increase in food production.  If we are going to meet that need, we’ll need to grow more food in ways that improve the economy and the natural systems that sustain us all.

Most of the gains in organic farming have been made in the fruit and vegetable department. And that’s a good thing. But to achieve results at scale and meet the goals of SDG 12 on time, we’ll need to engage Big Business. I’m encouraged by what I see.

Additional reading:

Powerful Business: The Lever for Change Across the Supply Chain

This post was originally part of a series produced by The Huffington Post, "What's Working: Sustainable Development Goals," in conjunction with the United Nations'Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposed set of milestones will be the subject of discussion at the UN General Assembly meeting on Sept. 25-27, 2015 in New York. The goals, which will replace the UN's Millennium Development Goals(2000-2015), cover 17 key areas of development — including poverty, hunger, health, education, and gender equality, among many others. As part of The Huffington Post's commitment to solutions-oriented journalism, this What's Working SDG blog series will focus on one goal every weekday in September. This post addresses Goal 12.

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.

2014 has seen exciting growth in the maturing green bonds market, with clear investor demand and issuance tripling compared to 2013. However, for the market to grow to scale, this sector needs the kinds of systems and accepted standards in place that sustain the $80 trillion global debt capital markets.

I recently caught up with a key figure in the green bond movement – Sean Kidney, chief executive and co-founder of the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) – to discuss the current state of green debt and what it will take to scale up investments. Kidney launched CBI as a project of the Network for Sustainable Financial Markets, after a career in social marketing and strategy consulting, including working at some of the largest Australian pension funds. Here are some highlights from our conversation:

I understand that policy will play a key role in scaling the green bond marketplace. What role is CBI playing in the policy arena?

A price on carbon is critical to creating a scale, but that has proved challenging to secure in the near-term. Instead, we are largely focusing on what we call financial system policy.

First and foremost, we are advancing international standards, working to establish clear, green and robust definitions. We have a huge number of organizations involved in this, representing $34 trillion of investors, and sizeable grants from Bloomberg and the Swiss government. The type of certification system we are working to establish is critical to building and maintaining reasonable confidence in green bond “credentials”.

Our second focus is what we call policy formulation, helping governments see that ‘There’s a pot of gold over there,’ and showing them how to harvest it. Examples of this effort include a couple of papers we published in the spring. One is about what China can do to grow its green bond market and the macroeconomic reasons to do it. We also published a report for the European Commission on Financing the Future, where we articulated the role of green bonds in designing stable financial markets.

Our third effort is what we call market education; here our focus is to increase issuance. We’ve established there is investor demand, and now we need to feed it with bonds, so we travel the world working with the issuer community. We brief banks and cities on this new market, hoping to motivate them to enter it and thereby build supply.

There’s a lot of issuance coming through the system. I think we’ll see double the market this year than we saw last year without too much difficulty, but I want it to triple again because triple gets us to a magical $1 billion issuance, which has political resonance.

Sean Kidney, CEO/Co-Founder, Climate Bonds Initiative

What are the barriers to getting to that “magical $1 billion number”?

The U.S. market – full stop. In contrast with Europe, U.S. banks, such as Bank of America (BoA) are not promoting the independent review of green bonds. It just happened again; BoA’s second bond sold reasonably well and there was no independent review of the green credentials. We believe a broad culture of independent review would unlock supply.

We are making headway on this. Last year, a minority of bonds had an independent review and now 81 percent of bonds are getting them. That’s a big win! But, within the current system, there are two interrelated problems – variability and scalability.

It is a fragmented group of players in the current system of third-party review, providing a variety of reviews that you can’t easily compare. Big four accounting firms have not entered the space because there is no clear standard which can guide a review; their internal governance people have warned them away from the space. That might soon change, though, as the big four accounting firms have formed a working group to support the Climate Bonds Standard. With the Climate Bonds Standard, they are effectively auditing against an independent standard — a position their ethics people say they can take.

The other issue is scalability. There’s a small number of bodies that can do a review that have risen out of the European socially responsible investment market. Their experience isn’t transferable to other key geographies, such as China and the United States.

How is CBI addressing this barrier?

We are pushing a standards-based approach. The funding is largely provided by foundations and grants. Banks do sponsor bits of the work but only on the condition that they have no role in governance.

We have a board made up of non-profits organizations that represent investor associations and buy-side capital, and who don’t provide us any funding. The Board includes the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the state treasurer of California, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project . World Wildlife Fund (WWF) will join a little later this year.

There’s a whole series of domain working groups, which consists largely of academics and special centers like World Resources Institute, and then there’s an industry working group made up of banks and investors. The industry group “translates” the recommendations of the academics, so that they work for financial market players.

The next iteration of the standard, which is currently available on our site for review, does two things compared to version 1.0 — it picks up the reporting language from the green bond principles, and it simplifies the review requirements. Our aim with this iteration is to make the process effective while reducing the room for interpretation. That also has the benefit of hopefully making it cheaper.

The challenge has been how low we can get the cost of transaction, while maintaining confidence and rigor. That’s the fun part of this particular iteration. We plan to release version 2.0 of the standard in October of [2015].

Up to this point, the market’s been fairly robust and there hasn’t been a certification process in place. What’s the incentive to go through the certification process?

I disagree [that the market has been robust]. The market is reasonably okay because we’ve chosen not to be too tough. As the market balloons, the scrutiny will increase.

We recently convened a meeting of the world’s biggest law firms. They tell us fairly unequivocally companies have a risk of being sued if they assert their own green bond credentials. For example, if investors buy something on a green claim and find out from an environmental group it wasn’t very green, they’re going to sue them.

Furthermore, the current model of getting an independent review, as proposed in the Green Bond Principles, getting an assurance against vague concepts is indefensible legally. They will not advise their clients to accept that as a risk mitigation tool. If there are credible standards in the market and a company gets certified against those standards, that is a reasonable risk mitigation measure. The other driver is cost. We expect certification to be cheaper than a second opinion.

*********

We at EDF applaud Kidney’s efforts through CBI to scale the green bond market. He is clearly attacking this effort with passion and urgency. As he sees it, “this work has the potential to help us be more resilient to the climate change shocks we’re going to experience this century.”

To learn more, or to engage with Sean Kidney and the Climate Bonds Initiative, we recommend visiting CBI’s website. We are excited about the potential for a strong review process that would create tangible environmental benefits and drive more capital into the space. We look forward to continuing to follow the developments in green bond financing as the sector matures.

By Victoria Mills

Experts are saying 2015 may turn out to be the hottest year on record. But thankfully, as my colleague Tom Murray predicted earlier this year, 2015 is also shaping up to be a year for action – by businesses and governments alike – to bend the curve on the emissions that cause climate change.

This year, the Obama administration introduced important new regulations to cut GHG emissions from the electric power, oil and gas and transportation sectors. And businesses are standing behind them. Investors representing $1.5 trillion in managed assets supported federal limits on methane emissions. PepsiCo, Ben & Jerry’s and other companies called for stronger fuel economy and emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. And 365 companies and investors wrote to state governors urging timely implementation of the Clean Power Plan, our nation’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

A watershed moment for climate action is approaching in December, when the United States and other nations gather in Paris for the COP21 climate negotiations. A strong agreement in Paris could put the world on a path towards greenhouse gas reductions that science tells us are necessary for a stable climate. Business leadership will be critical, both to embolden the negotiators to reach a strong deal, and to ensure that the U.S. delivers on the commitments made in Paris.

Amplifying business support for climate action

Right now, there is a wealth of opportunities for businesses to voice their support for a strong outcome in Paris, and showcase their own efforts to cut climate pollution. Last week, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) organized a webinar to present those opportunities and clarify how companies can get involved.

Highlights include:

• The American Business Act on Climate Pledge, launched by the White House in July with 13 signatories including Apple, Google, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Walmart. By signing the pledge, companies call for a strong climate deal in Paris and commit to reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions. The White House is now inviting companies of all sectors and sizes to take the pledge and will announce a new round of commitments in the fall.

• The We Mean Business Coalition is calling on companies to make climate commitments in advance of COP21, including setting science-based emission reduction targets, sourcing renewable energy, putting a price on carbon and engaging constructively in climate and energy policy. Commitments made through We Mean Business will also register on the NAZCA Portal, where so far over 1500 companies, investors, cities and regions around the world have pledged to set GHG reduction goals.
• Companies wanting more in-person interaction can attend Climate Week NYC (September 21-28 in New York City), a series of high-profile meetings on climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy. And the Caring for Climate Business Forum (December 7-8 in Paris) will give businesses and investors a venue to meet with government officials and the United Nations right before the COP21 talks.
• Finally, the Corporate Renewables Partnership, an initiative of the World Wildlife Fund, BSR, the World Resources Institute and the Rocky Mountain Institute, offers resources and assistance for companies that want to increase their use of renewable energy.

We’re excited by the many ways in which companies can show their support for the negotiations in Paris and their commitment to climate action at home. Listen to the webinar, click through the links and see which ones make sense for your company. Most have deadlines in September or October to publicize participation prior to Paris, so the time to act is now.

Every company that calls for action makes business’s voice at the Paris talks stronger, empowering our leaders to strike a strong deal and see it through. And that’s something worth shouting about.

Also of interest:

• Game Time for Fixing the Natural Gas Industry's Achilles Heel
• The Clean Power Plan is Out – Time for Business to Focus in on the Certainties and Weigh In

By Jennifer McPartland

The call for safer chemicals and products has reached a tipping point in the marketplace. A recently released report from the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) lays out compelling market trends for safer chemicals across several indicators including demand, capital flow, and job growth. The report notes that the growth rate for safer chemicals is expected to be 24 times higher than that for conventional chemicals over the time period of 2011-2020. In sum, there is tremendous market opportunity for companies able to deliver on demonstrably safer chemicals and products.

Today, EDF is publishing the fourth of five installments on its Pillars of Leadership for Safer Chemicals in the Marketplace: Product Design. The Product Design leadership pillar is about getting specific on how a company will move away from problematic chemicals and ensure the use of safer chemicals. It’s about putting Institutional Commitments to safer products and chemicals into action.

In a nutshell, the Product Design leadership pillar includes four key parts:

1. Establishing specific measurable objectives with timelines (e.g., percentage reduction of a target chemical by a certain time);

1. Determining a methodology for how a company will meet objectives (i.e., identifying how information on the hazards and risks of chemicals will be developed and subsequently used to make decisions on product development and sale);

1. Identifying internal and external stakeholders that are needed to successfully meet objectives; and

1. Developing a timeline for tracking progress against objectives, reevaluating and updating objectives, and assessing the overall effectiveness of the Product Design

Product Design for safer chemicals is where the rubber hits the road in a company’s journey from Institutional Commitments to impact.  It helps companies become leaders in the rapidly expanding marketplace for safer products – and leads to a healthier world.

By Chris Meyer and Dana Miller

Two tropical forest conservation efforts have gained momentum in recent years: zero deforestation commitments from the private sector and the policy framework Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both efforts are necessary, but not sufficient in themselves to eliminate global deforestation.

Private sector conservation initiatives on individual farms (represented by green trees in the left image) can result in pockets of forest surrounded by deforestation, but Zero Deforestation Zones can conserve forests throughout entire jurisdictions (represented by the green state-wide program in the right image). Credit: Rick Velleu, EDF

In a recently published paper in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry, we find that linking REDD+ and zero deforestation commitments offers a more efficient and effective solution to stop deforestation, which we call Zero Deforestation Zones (ZDZ).

The current state of private initiatives and REDD+

Deforestation, which is responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gases, is primarily caused by conversion for the production of four commodities in Brazil and Indonesia: beef, soy, palm, and timber products. To address this urgent problem, companies that control more than 90% of soy purchases in the Amazon, around half of cattleslaughter in the Brazilian Amazon, and 96% of palm oil trade globally have committed to stop deforestation.

While these company commitments are promising, many producers that clear forests can still sell commodities to companies that don’t have deforestation commitments, or they can even sell indirectly to the companies that have committed to zero deforestation. In other words, under the current policies even if companies clean up their own supply chains, they could be just creating islands of green in a sea of deforestation.

Policies for REDD+ have made great strides in recent years. The United Nations completed the technical guidance in 2014 under The Warsaw Framework for REDD+. Tropical countries have begun implementing REDD+ on the ground, while donor countries have committed $7.2 billion to the effort.

However, REDD+ implementation has been slow in many countries for two reasons. First, there’s a lack of political will and uncertainty about sustainable flows of REDD+ funding in the future. Second, few private-sector actors responsible for deforestation actively engage in the creation of REDD+ strategies and programs.

The Solution: Zero Deforestation Zones

Zero Deforestation Zones would address these challenges by bringing together private sector deforestation commitments and REDD+ programs to create a jurisdiction-wide solution.

Zero Deforestation Zones would be municipalities, states or entire countries where governments, companies and communities come together to eliminate deforestation throughout their jurisdiction. The definition of a ZDZ would be based on the context of the jurisdiction and a common framework outlined in the paper. Governments would develop and implement REDD+ programs. Companies would preferentially source commodities from ZDZs and focus new investment and expansion in the ZDZs.

The synergies that Zero Deforestation Zones can create between the private sector zero deforestation commitments and REDD+ include:

1. Lower risks of non-compliance with public and private zero deforestation policies: If companies and governments harmonize their definitions and policies around zero deforestation, they can increase pressure on direct and indirect suppliers to comply with these policies.
2. Shared monitoring, reporting, and verification systems: Governments could implement deforestation monitoring systems at economies of scale with REDD+ financing, generating useful data for the private sector.
3. Increased investment in agricultural programs: REDD+ funding could support programs by producer associations and certifications to increase agricultural production on existing farms. In addition, companies would invest in ZDZs by sourcing commodities and building new infrastructure.
4. Multi-stakeholder platforms: REDD+ stakeholder platforms would bring actors together to discuss shared concerns about forest and land sectors’ governance. These platforms could also help resolve land disputes between private sector actors and local communities and indigenous peoples.

Zero Deforestation Zones offer a framework to maximize the potential of both companies’ zero deforestation commitments and REDD+ programs. Multinational companies, their suppliers and governments in the areas they source from should discuss how they can collaborate to create a Zero Deforestation Zone.

Read more in our paper, Zero Deforestation Zones: The Case for Linking Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives and Jurisdictional REDD+, published in the special issue on Forests as Capital in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

By Elizabeth Sturcken

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
-Archimedes

Sometimes when a problem seems too big, too ugly and too complex to handle, you need a lever to help move things along.  All of the big environmental problems we currently face fall into this category.

When it comes to tackling our planet’s biggest problems, there is a full spectrum of approaches and many different leverage points. For me, the most important lever is business. A thriving planet and a thriving economy don’t have to be at odds. EDF is focusing on helping businesses make their supply chains cleaner, more efficient and more profitable.

Working with powerful business has been a cornerstone of EDF’s approach ever since we launched our 1st partnership with McDonald’s 25 years ago. Since then, we have kick-started market transformations in fast food with McDonalds and Starbucks, shipping with FedEx, retail with Walmart, and private equity with KKR. With each partnership, we’ve worked to create new, sustainable demand signals that extend across the supply chain. When powerful business speaks, suppliers listen. EDF is helping the most impactful companies commit to selling sustainably-produced products, encouraging every supplier and producer contributing to those products to also adopt more sustainable practices.

EDF is currently focused on cleaning up consumer product supply chains in three key areas: deforestation, fertilizer pollution and hazardous chemicals. By working with retailers and consumer products suppliers, EDF has the potential to effect real environmental gains. On farms across the United States. In forests in Brazil. In food and beauty products on store shelves. In the air we breathe.

Through our work with Walmart and The Sustainability Consortium, EDF has had the opportunity to look across incredibly large and complex supply chains, index the environmental “hot spots,” and work with key influencers on the chain.

Fertilizer Use

Nitrogen fertilizer use was one of those hot spots, giving EDF the opportunity to dig into greening the agricultural supply chain. Our work with Walmart to reduce 20 MMT of greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chain was a catalyst for focusing on optimizing fertilizer use. Now, by leveraging the power of businesses across the entire food supply chain, EDF and collaborators are on track to optimize 23 million acres of U.S. farmland by 2020.

Deforestation

Demand for commodities such as beef, soy, and palm oil are responsible for an estimated eighty percent of forest loss across the globe, and 12 percent of climate change. In response, major companies like Walmart, Cargill, McDonald’s and 260 others have made commitments to achieve a deforestation-free supply chain. We’re helping companies create the systems to understand where their products come from and achieve their commitments.

EDF’s solution orients supply-chain commitments at the level of Zero Deforestation Zones: entire political jurisdictions —nations, states or counties that are able to demonstrate reductions in deforestation and ultimately achieve zero net deforestation within their borders. Sourcing agricultural commodities from ZDZs has the benefit of reducing costs and complexity in monitoring supply chains. We are simultaneously building the demand for deforestation-free products from major brands and retailers and creating supply of Zero Deforestation Zones (ZDZs) in first-mover states in Brazil.

Hazardous Chemicals

In the U.S., more than 10,000 additives are allowed in food during manufacturing, processing, packaging and transport. While many of these chemicals are essential to the modern food supply, we know far too little about the health risks they pose to the public. EDF is developing a systematic approach to addressing hazardous food additives that is firmly grounded in rigorous scientific and policy analysis. Drawing on multiple years of research on science and policy behind chemical additives and decades of successful partnerships with corporate America, EDF is currently engaged in getting companies to adopt policies for safer food and consumer products. Our goal is to define a pathway for business to send the demand signal to move chemicals of concern out of the marketplace.

EDF and our corporate partners are making great gains, but there is so much more to be done. We need to keep building and strengthening the business lever by getting more companies to actively send smart demand signals across their supply chains. It’s good for the planet, and it’s good for business. Everyone wins.

By Victoria Mills and Cheryl Roberto

To many, it may seem that pursuing environmental sustainability would fall relatively low on a municipal housing authority’s goals.  After all, providing moderate and low-income families with clean, stable homes in the face of uncertain federal subsidies and increasing taxpayer scrutiny is challenge enough.

The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver (DHA), therefore, deserves praise for its innovative solar power program that not only provides renewable energy, but creates revenue for the housing authority, creates green jobs in the region, and saves taxpayers’ money – all the while reflecting the spirit of the federal Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Challenge, which looks to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent by the year 2020. DHA serves as a model for municipalities across the country.

Andrea Davis of the DHA’s Real Estate Department and Chris Jedd, portfolio energy manager, showed the creativity and sheer will to make a lofty renewable energy goal affordable, manageable and successful, while providing their communities with empowerment, economic opportunity, and a vibrant living environment.

Taking financing and deployment to scale

After careful vetting through its RFP process, the DHA partnered with several solar energy companies to ensure that taxpayers funded virtually no up-front costs.  In 2012, the authority teamed with Denver-based Oak Leaf Energy Partners to scope, develop and seek financing for the project which included the installation of 666 solar electric systems on 387 DHA resident housing rooftops, with the production potential for 2.5 megawatts of electricity.  Namaste Solar of Boulder, CO installed more than 10,000 solar panels over the course of 11 months.  And, Belgium-based Enfinity provided $10 million in financing and operation of the systems,  agreeing to not only sell the electricity it generates from the solar electric systems to DHA at a discount, but to pay DHA for leasing the authority’s roof space.

Throughout the project, DHA wrote its own rules. Without vast internal experience and expertise in running its own solar power business – and without the upfront capital — the authority looked outside for the right combination of partners that could help the authority realize the goal of an anticipated 3.4 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year, which is an annual reduction of around 3,400 tons of carbon dioxide in the region.

Preserving capital, keeping costs predictable

For DHA, there are a number of resulting benefits. This project enabled the housing authority to expand its portfolio of renewable energy sources without dedicating funding. And, with the additional revenue streams from its roof leases, DHA has capital that can be used for other much-needed improvements.

In addition the DHA’s solar energy costs are now also long-term and predictable, which is something the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) encourages.  And, with accompanying resident communications programs, DHA has provided its residents with information about the project and an additional reason for them to take pride in their homes.

Through its EDF Climate Corps program, Environmental Defense Fund has proudly worked with DHA on its sustainability programs, and we’ve seen first-hand how DHA’s proactive engagement on the frontlines of its Solar PPA changed the way it viewed its energy consumption and carbon footprint.

There are 3,300 housing authorities in the United States. If all followed DHA’s lead, the rooftops of public housing authorities could produce 11 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually, powering more than one million homes, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 11 million tons. And saving municipal taxpayers millions of dollars annually in energy costs.

It’s time for those other 3,299 other municipalities to follow DHA’s lead.

By Jason Mathers

Collaborative logistics – where multiple companies cooperate to share freight capacity – holds the key to dramatic reductions in freight emissions and costs. Unfortunately, most consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies continue to manage discrete lines of supply to retail customers, passing up these opportunities.

• Partially full trucks today run side-by-side on the highway, even though they are travelling to the exact same retail distribution center (DC), and freight could have been combined.
• Outbound deliveries of full trailers ride alongside empty trailers returning home to the same destination after a delivery, even though the outbound shipper could have leveraged the opportunity presented by the empty trailer for an aggressive backhaul rate.
• Heavy and light products cause trucks to weigh out before they’re full and cube out below the truck’s weight capacity has been reached, even when the solution could have been as simple as combining shipments of cotton balls and hammers traveling along the same route.

Examples of collaborative logistics at work

More and more companies are recognizing the value of collaboration in meeting their sustainability goals. It turns out that when shippers climb out of their silos, good things happen. These are just a few examples of solutions being employed by companies:

• Ocean Spray and Tropicana.  Tropicana shipped orange juice north from Florida in refrigerated box cars, which often travelled back empty to Florida.  Ocean Spray trucked its juice products from New Jersey to Florida along the same route. By shifting most of this TL volume to utilize Tropicana’s rail backhauls (CSX), Ocean Spray cut freight costs 40% for this lane and reduced greenhouse gas emissions 65%.
• Whirlpool and Daltile. Both of these large manufacturers have factories in Monterrey, Mexico and ship product into the U.S. via rail. Daltile’s heavy ceramic tile reach a rail box car’s 200,000 pound weight limit with enough room for a 53-foot trailer. Meanwhile, Whirlpool’s appliances were cubing out box cars at just 35,000 pounds.  The solution?  Put four truckloads of tile in each box car (160,000) and fill the rest with refrigerators.  Each company now pays just 50% of the cost for the trip, but gets 80 percent of the maximum cube or weight capacity. Daltile’s complete freight collaboration program, generates $3 million in annual freight savings and reduces diesel fuel usage by more than 600,000 gallons per year.

Here are some tips to help your company get started on collaborative logistics:

• Leverage your 3PLs. They service many companies and are in a good position to identify collaborative logistics opportunities and partners.

• Look to competitors. Your freight is likely going to the same customers and DCs.

• Share cost information. When lo-loading freight, mutual trust is critical to determining an equitable cost-sharing arrangement. Both companies must be transparent about what they are paying now.

• Dedicated the required resources. The right collaborative logistics projects can have a huge payoff, but they require significant time and resources to pull off. Don’t underestimate the time required to make these inter-company projects work.

Find more tips on collaborative logistics and other green freight initiatives in EDF’s comprehensive Green Freight Handbook – a free guide to helping you achieve your sustainability goals.

By Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

As the dog days of summer expire and football season approaches, many sports fans will anxiously scan their favorite team’s rosters for training camp injuries–finding everything from the innocuous, to the dreaded torn Achilles that already sidelined several pro players for the season’s start.

When it comes to the energy industry, methane emissions loom as the Achilles heel of natural gas. On the surface, natural gas appears to many as a star American player – abundant and cleaner burning than coal.

But unchecked methane emissions, which are 84 times more potent than CO2, undercut natural gas’ climate change performance.

This risk has grown particularly acute because the recently finalized Clean Power Plan, which targets carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, casts natural gas as part of a viable near-term strategy to win the climate game.

The spotlight on natural gas’ performance is only growing as more viewers tune in.

The difference is, while there is no sure-fire way to prevent an Achilles tear on the athletic field, we have the means at our fingertips to dramatically reduce methane emissions and help natural gas become a stronger player that puts more points on the board for the economy and climate.

New EPA methane rules announced Tuesday can be an important step if finalized in strong form, yielding four business benefits:

1. Address investor concerns

Last month, investors with $1.5 trillion in assets under management pointed out that methane emissions from oil and gas are “threatening infrastructure and economic harm that will weaken not only the companies we invest in, but the nation as a whole.”

But there are solutions, and it’s time to up our investment.

As a representative from institutional investor giant CalPERS put it: “Regulation to ensure that companies manage, monitor and ultimately limit these potent [methane] emissions is vitally important.”

That’s because, although some proactive companies like Noble, Southwestern and a number of others are – to their significant credit – taking action to reduce emissions in the absence of national standards, volunteerism alone is not a credible approach to guaranteeing environmental protections across a sprawling industry with thousands of companies.

1. Reduce needless waste

We have the technologies today to reduce emissions, not only benefitting climate and local air quality, but also boosting industry’s efficiency by producing one of its main products.

Statoil is one of the leaders in this area, and explains in this video that from a core business perspective, its use in Texas of military derived, infrared FLIR technology keeps more product in the pipes and increases sales.

Just as fuel economy standards for cars catalyzed a surge in efficiency in Detroit, a level playing field of methane regulations will boost efficiency and cut waste in the oil and gas industry.

1. Create American jobs

Many of the technologies that forward-leaning companies are adopting to cut emissions are manufactured by domestic firms. In fact, nearly 60 percent of the companies in our burgeoning methane mitigation industry are small businesses, the growth engine of the American economy. The median wage of over $30/hour is more than 50 percent greater than the nation’s average.

This industry unto itself stands at the ready with cost-effective solutions. And it stands to grow.

As Colorado-based leak detection business Apogee Scientific said of its experience with state-based methane regulations: “We have seen first-hand that standards created in a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process can reduce methane emissions in a cost-effective manner that will reduce waste, benefit the environment and create American jobs.”

1. Build a pathway for natural gas trucks

Some companies see natural gas trucks as a growth opportunity, while others have already invested and want to manage reputational risk. For both camps, methane regulations are a boon.

That’s because based on today’s methane emission rates, switching from diesel to natural gas  trucks can cause 50 to 90 years of climate change damage, raising serious questions about the wisdom of the choice. Upstream regulation of methane – in the vast supply chain the gas passes through before it reaches the trucks – is a key pathway to tilting natural gas trucks investments from risk to return.

Let’s start fixing natural gas’ Achilles heel this season. Getting strong methane rules over the goal line is a big piece of the game plan.

By Sarah Vogel

It seems that almost every week, another major food company announces plans to remove artificial colors and flavors from their products. In the past six months, major food companies such as Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg's, Hershey’s and Campbell’s committed to reformulating many of their iconic brands to be free of artificial colors and  flavors. National restaurant chains such as Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Subway and Noodles & Company also made similar commitments. Tens of billions of dollars of products are being reformulated.

What’s driving all this change?

It turns out more and more Americans are concerned about what goes into their food, especially when it comes to the thousands of chemical additives—substances used to color, preserve, flavor, or emulsify food or to process or package food, like phthalates.

According to a May 2015 industry survey, 36% of consumers polled said chemicals in food was their most important safety issue for them and their families today — more than pesticides, animal antibiotics, undeclared allergens and pathogens. This is up from 9% in 2011. What’s more, 45% said they changed food purchases as a result of information they learned about chemicals, pesticide residues, and animal antibiotics.

Another survey by CivicScience published the same month reported similar numbers with health concerns about preservatives and chemicals rating higher  than added sugar, saturated fats, and sodium. These weren’t urban foodies following the latest trends on social media: those most concerned were generally from rural areas, more likely to be influenced by TV news, and less likely to eat out or use social media. With numbers like these, no wonder the food industry is scrambling to respond.

There is good reason to be concerned about potentially unsafe chemicals in the food supply, and importantly, the problem extends well beyond whether an ingredient might be artificial. So, while these recent efforts to remove artificial ingredients respond to mounting consumer concerns, they won’t sate the consumer’s appetite for healthier and safer foods.

EDF is launching a new initiative to move potentially unsafe chemicals from the food supply by harnessing the transformative power of supply chains. EDF’s Behind the Label: A Blueprint for Safer Food Additives provides a roadmap for corporate leadership that moves companies from a reactionary response to artificial ingredients to a proactive approach to ensure safer, simpler food.  We’re excited to have Tom Neltner leading this new effort on safer chemicals in food.  Tom spent years investigating the safety of chemical food additives at the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In the coming weeks and months, we’ll be outlining the problem of potentially unsafe chemicals in food, the current state of the market response to rising concerns, and our vision for corporate leadership for safer chemicals in food.

By Tom Murray

Commuting home from work last week and listening to the radio, I heard the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) described as a big deal for our company, our nation, and our planet. When so much of the initial news coverage about the CPP was focused on uncertainty, it was terrific to listen to Ralph Izzo, CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) focus on the certainties.  According to Izzo, the science is in on climate change, the CPP creates business opportunities for PSEG and others, and the future for PSEG and utilities in general will be increased reliability, more energy efficiency, and increasing energy from carbon-free sources.

For nearly 25 years, EDF has partnered with leading companies to accelerate environmental innovation in their products, operations, strategies, and supply chains.  In fact, it was EDF’s early partnerships with McDonalds and FedEx that first attracted me to the organization.  While we’ve made considerable progress working with business, there’s still a lot of work to be done to reach the low carbon, clean energy future mentioned above.  To get there, we need more aggressive private sector leadership and strong support for solutions like the CPP.

What’s next with the CPP?  It’s time for business to focus on the certainties and weigh in…

• The CPP builds on progress already being made by states and businesses, and offers a roadmap for critical emission reductions from the power plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., and one of the single largest sources in the world. According to a recent Washington Post article, interviews and independent studies show that “despite dire warnings and harsh political rhetoric, many states are already on track to meet their targets, even before the EPA formally announces them.”  In part because natural gas and renewables have accounted for 93 percent of all new power generation since 2000.

• The plan puts states in the driver’s seat to develop plans and strategies to reduce emissions efficiently and cost-effectively at the state level. Business has a choice.  It can put up roadblocks that delay innovation and impact health and the environment, or business can help navigate by working closely with states to design the approaches that work best for the environment and the economy.  Putting us on the road to lower emissions, increased efficiency, and cleaner energy options.

• Many leading businesses are already voicing their support. Organized by Ceres, 365 companies and investors across the country sent letters to governors across the country calling for swift development of state implementation plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan. These companies and investors know that there is tremendous economic opportunity in tackling climate change and look forward to working with their governors to develop state plans over the coming year.

• The CPP offers businesses the opportunity to kick sustainability and innovation into high gear. Those who are already leading the way have a competitive advantage, but all companies will be incentivized to invest in more efficient equipment, green power purchasing, renewable energy and GHG reduction goals at their facilities.

• Clean Energy is the next big industry boom. With the CPP, a strong demand signal is being sent, that will spur innovation and create new jobs in energy efficiency and clean energy. Investment and innovation in renewables, storage, clean tech, and more are on the rise and have the potential lower costs and emissions. You need only look at California as a test bed to see how smart policy has created a clean tech race to the top.

• It’s time to accelerate. The Clean Power Plan builds on the progress we have seen in recent years and will help ensure that the nation accelerates a transition to a low-carbon economy. Getting these emissions under control is essential if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change and protect public health.  In total, the Clean Power Plan is expected to provide climate benefits of $20 billion and health benefits of $14-$34 billion per year by 2030.

At the very least, what business needs to do now is to stay informed and get engaged. Understand how the states in which you do business are planning to address the roll-out of the Clean Power Plan, and use your leverage to influence business-positive outcomes.

Some resources:

Ten Things to Know About EPA’s Clean Power Plan

State by State Fact Sheets for the Clean Power Plan

Amplifying Business Voices at COP21: Webinar on August 20th

By Suzy Friedman

Farming is a tough business.  With constantly changing crop prices, difficult to predict and increasingly extreme weather variations, and changing consumer demands, growers don’t have an easy time of it.

Like any business, profitability is the number one priority. And it should be – if you are not profitable, it’s very hard to stay in business.

All the growers I’ve worked with care deeply about their land. In a recent survey of a group of Midwestern farmers, “land stewardship” ranked as their top value.  And sustainability is in a farmers’ best interest since healthy lands plays a huge role in whether farms will be around – and productive – for the next generation. But making agriculture truly sustainable will require investment from farmers.

Here’s the good news: sustainability and profitability can go hand-in-hand. Efficiencies like fertilizer optimization can result in cost savings. And with those savings, growers can invest in new technologies and cover crops, which can help make farms more resilient and increase yields, generating long term economic gain.

Tim Richter, owner of Saratoga Partnership

I asked Tim Richter, owner of a swine and corn farm operation spanning 9,000 acres in northern Iowa and Missouri, to tell me his profitability and sustainability story.

What is your farming story?

I was raised on a farm, and I actually live in the same house that I grew up in – it’s pretty great. I always had farming in my blood, but after three years in the Army, I realized I wanted to be my own boss and be independent. So I used the G.I. Bill to attend Iowa State and graduated with a degree in agronomy.  I then went back to the farm and joined my late brother to establish Saratoga Partnership.

What about your sustainability story?

I heard a presentation on sustainability about five years ago and remember thinking “I’m in” as soon as it was over.  More than anything, I believe protecting our land is the right thing to do. But becoming more efficient through changes in on-farm practices also segments me from the competition.  By changing some of my practices and measuring those adjustments, I’m gaining a real business advantage.

Soon after that presentation, I became involved with The Sustainability Consortium, an organization that works to develop tools that make it easier for companies, governments, farmers and others to implement and track sustainability measures – and efficiencies.

"[Smarter fertilizer management] has paid big dividends. If this is sustainability, I'm on board."

–Tim Richter, in a Farm Journal story on farming green to get in the black

I also know vegetable producers who’ve had to change their practices due to market considerations over the years. By being able to adopt new technologies, they’ve not only helped the environment but they’ve stayed in business and stayed more profitable.

Is sustainability becoming the new normal in agriculture?

Walmart wants to improve the sustainability of the products in its supply chain, including things like fertilizer optimization and soil conservation in commodity crops. This has big implications for farmers.

If Walmart can make a difference in the sustainability of corn, it will affect the entire supply chain. And the demand for fertilizer-efficient corn will be rampant.

That means farmers will need to invest in sustainability initiatives and technologies for their long-term viability. Putting profits into efficiency and conservation just makes good business sense.

How is technology helping your efforts?

With tools like variable rate technologies I can now look at one plot of 160 acres as 160 one-acre fields.  I can manage my crops by acre, to optimize individual parcels.  It doesn’t always mean I’ll use less fertilizer, but I’ll be putting it in places where it will result in better yields and less runoff.  The more I track, the more I know why certain acres are more profitable than others.

There are also new technologies coming to market every day to help farmers keep nutrients in their fields. They may require near-term investment for long-term gain, but profitability depends on these investments.

This blog was originally posted on Growing Returns

You might also be interested in:

Gaining Momentum for Optimized Fertilizer Use in Agriculture

Campbell’s Soup Expands Fertilizer Optimization Programs

By Tom Murray

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.

Sustainability pioneer and inspiration to many of us at EDF, Ray Anderson frequently talked about his company’s efforts to scale the seven faces of Mount Sustainability and develop a more responsible company along the way. Summiting a mountain is a good analogy for a company’s journey to improve its environmental performance. To succeed you need a plan, commitment, resources, and the ability to change direction if there are obstacles in your path.

In the case of a private equity firm like KKR & Co. L.P. – with over 56 portfolio companies participating in value creation programs linked to its environment, social and governance (ESG) strategy since 2009– the journey is more akin to traversing an entire mountain range, whose contours keep evolving as companies enter and exit their portfolio.

That changing landscape is what’s driven KKR to continue to adapt how it manages ESG challenges and opportunities. KKR’s recently-released 5th annual ESG & Citizenship Report details how these programs have continued to evolve since our initial partnership in 2008.

Our work together helped drive KKR’s Green Portfolio Program which, six years later, has added a cumulative $1.2 billion to its portfolio companies’ bottom lines while avoiding more than 2.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gases and reducing waste by 6.3 million metric tons and water use by 27 million cubic meters, according to results announced last fall.

KKR’s latest report documents the firm’s progress in advancing ongoing efforts, including measuring and improving ESG performance at key portfolio companies, rolling out a publicly available ESG policy across its global private equity staff, contributing its expertise to the Sustainable Accounting Standards Boards’ development of ESG disclosure guidelines, bringing together sustainability professionals and other experts at its first Sustainability Summit last year, and hiring a full-time energy expert and two EDF Climate Corps fellows to help its portfolio companies more systematically adopt solutions for better energy management.

In addition, something new caught our eye. KKR plans to refocus its investment efforts through one of three lenses – responsible investing, solutions investing and impact investing.

• Responsible investing incorporates ESG metrics and analysis into investment decisions.
• Solutions investing refers to investments made in companies that have an intentional focus on solving a societal challenge and deliver traditional returns to investors, such as providers of reusable bulk shipping containers, developers of environmentally-responsible office buildings in Korea and microfinance groups increasing access to capital for business owners in rural and semirural India.
• Impact investing goes beyond the other two, focusing on investments in companies that put environmental and social impacts on par or even ahead of financial impacts. KKR began advising two impact businesses in 2013 by providing technical assistance, helping the companies scale their businesses and secure additional funding. Moving forward, KKR will consider investing in such businesses.

At EDF, we believe that private capital can and must be part of the solution to our biggest environmental challenges. We’re encouraged to see major investors like KKR expand their investment strategy as the next step in this journey and eager to see the environmental and financial results it delivers.

By Jason Mathers

Ben and Jerry’s became the latest corporate voice calling for strong fuel-efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks. In a Guardian op-ed, CEO Jostein Solheim made a compelling triple-bottom-line case for protective standards for new trucks.

Mr. Solheim noted that seventeen percent of the company’s carbon footprint is associated with transporting products. This includes bringing ingredients to manufacturing facilities (three percent) and moving the finished products to distribution centers (fourteen percent).

Like packaging, transportation and distribution is a consistent, significant carbon footprint component of every product: six percent of H&M clothes; twenty-five percent of the carbon budget from Mars; and thirty five percent of Philips operations, for example. And, trucks are the largest single component of distribution emissions, accounting for 57% of the collective impact. Therefore, it is in the interest of every product manufacturer and brand in the U.S. to see these trucks use less fuel.

The single most impactful thing we can do today to reduce emissions from product distribution is to build more efficient trucks. We have the technical know-how to cost-effectively double the efficiency of freight trucks. We also know that having well-designed standards in place is a necessary step to bringing these solutions to market at scale.

The leadership action taken by Ben & Jerry’s is critical because it helps showcase the breadth of companies calling for protective standards:

• IKEA and Stonyfield — companies that rely on trucks to get their products to market — want to see strong truck efficiency standards.
• Walmart – a large user of for-hire freight services and owner of the fourth largest private fleet — has recognized that stronger truck fuel efficiency standards “can present key opportunities to improve efficiency across the industry in a coordinated, responsible and safe way.”
• Pepsico – owner of the nation’s largest private fleet – applauded the release of the proposed standards noting that “Strong new truck fuel-economy standards will keep America moving in the right direction."
• FedEx – owner of the second largest for-hire fleet in the U.S. – noted its desire for standards that “create more fuel-efficient and lower-emitting commercial vehicles.”

In writing its op-ed, Ben & Jerry joined these companies in embracing the benefits of protective standards for heavy trucks. It also went a step further in its leadership, noting that the recent proposals by the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency “are a step in the right direction, but they don’t lower emissions far enough or fast enough.”

EDF agrees. We’ve called on the agencies to set new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks that cut fuel consumption by 40 percent in 2025 compared to 2010. Such standards are technically achievable, economically viable and will benefit businesses across our country.

We applaud the businesses that are leading the way to stronger standards for a stronger America.