Category: CSR

  • Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In Enviro Movement, 5 parts – JustMeans

    Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In The Environmental Movement, Part 1 of 5—Future 500 | Justmeans:

    There are 5 parts to this series. It’s talking about who is evolved int the Environmental movement, and why there isn’t more diversity. And why that is starting to change?

    This is a very interesting 5 part series by several authors.

    Part 1: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-1 by Danna Pfahl

    Part 2: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-2-of-5-future by Marvin Smith

    Part 3: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-3-of-5 by Shilpi Chhatray

    Part 4: http://3blmedia.com/News/Green-Mostly-White-Lack-Diversity-Environmental-Movement-Part-4-5-Future-500 by Brandon Steele

    Part 5: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-5-of-5-future by Nick Sorrentio

    The last one, by Sorrentio, talks about engaging businesses to help address environmental issues. SustainZine has long promoted serious action by business (and all organizations) in areas where the payback is obvious and near-term. Conservation, as in reducing energy, improved logistics (so less shipping), and telecommuting (so no travel) are all areas that have rapid payback to business and to the environment. So not only area companies making money in doing this, they are helping out the environment in doing this. Plus, it can become a perpetuity of savings, if properly monitored and maintained.

    This is something we call in the triple bottom-line business, a win-win-win… and a perpetuity of savings.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change

    Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?

    This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.

    Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.

    Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.

    Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for ‘the enemy’ is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.

    (Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)

    There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don’t watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.

    This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
    Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:

    Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with “Global Warming” and those who would say their “ain’t no such thing”. And he did it all without “sensationalist scare tactics”.

    When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who’s probabilities are most probable, give the facts?

    This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over “Global Warming”. Life’s too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller’s research was funded by the Koch brothers.

    This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say “Bad”.). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words “insane not to do so…”.)

    So let’s get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.

    What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to “fix” things.

    We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we “don’t need no government” for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)

    Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
    You choose?

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED

    Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED:

    Chris McKnett gives a wonderful talk on investing and the idea that all investors should start looking at ESG (economic, social and governance). The economic is obvious, profits. Social is the impact to people in general, and governance is corporate social responsibility (CSR).

    Generally the research shows that there is no downside to being socially (and environmentally) sustainable. But in the long term, some of these companies that are irresponsible can be expected to lag behind.

    Chris implies that as an investor it could be (?is?) irresponsible to invest in companies that are and continue to be non-sustainable. The point is that the downside risk is dramatically increased for non-sustainable companies and those that don’t aggressively plan related to their non-sustainable ways.

    Maybe an example would be having a lumber-based business where you are chopping down the trees. A sustainable plan would be to replant at the rate of usage. At a minimum, you should find another country with too many trees, so you can get past the inevitable lumber crunch on the horizon…

    One of the beauties of this talk is that it focuses on just the financials of the sustainability issue. If big institutional investors started seriously considering the sustainability of their investors, then it would become front and center to all investments everywhere.

    The problem with non-sustainable business practices is that they always, always, have negative externalities associated with them. And we all bear the costs of their negligence.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Dell Wants Employees To Work From Home – Business Insider

    Dell Wants Employees To Work From Home – Business Insider:

    Dell is following a “Do Good” plan for 2020. Remote work, packaging and shipping. Working with supply chain and customers as well. Looks pretty GOOD!:-)

    As it pertains to telecommuting… Dell seems to be saving a lot and doing “Good” as well. Telecommuting and other initiatives are outlined in Dell 2020 Legacy of Good Plan.

    Here’s a calc and additional info on Telecommuting savings: http://www.globalworkplaceanalytics.com/calculator

    So Dell is saving lots of money. $14m last year, and reducing impact on the environment, including almost 7 thousands barrels of oil/gas reduction.

    Sounds like a Good Plan, pun intended.:-)

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

    Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader:

    Some 67 percent of CEOs in the study believed business is not doing enough to address global sustainability challenges. . .  While 84 percent believed business should lead the way in addressing those challenges”


    Sustainable Leaders… Seems like something that Hall and Knab were talking about in their 2012 article/chapter.

    For businesses and business leaders (CEOs) not to take an active roll in sustainability would be, well, irresponsible (Hall & Knab, 2012).

    Reference

    Hall, E., & Knab, E.F. (2012, July). Social irresponsibility provides opportunity for the win-win-win of Sustainable Leadership. In C. A. Lentz (Ed.), The refractive thinker: Vol. 7. Social responsibility (pp. 197-220). Las Vegas, NV: The Refractive Thinker® Press.
    (Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0) 

    ‘via Blog this’