As allegedly the first company ever, Chr. Hansen -- a Danish bioscience giant that produces natural ingredients for the food, beverage, dietary supplements and agricultural industry -- has conducted an extensive analysis to map its entire product portfolio of more than 3,000 products against the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The analysis shows that 81 percent of Chr. Hansen’s gross revenue contributes to SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting sustainable agriculture, improving global health and reducing food waste. The new report -- Let’s grow our future. Naturally. How ingredients contribute to the UN Global Goals -- launched today at Sustainable Brands ‘17 Copenhagen, together with the UN Global Compact Danish Network. It has been assured by PwC, one of the world’s largest auditing and consulting companies. “Chr. Hansen has taken a new approach to document how the company supports the UN Global Goals through its activities,” said Jens Pultz Pedersen, Director at PwC. “Since there is no generally accepted standard for how this can be done, it has been an exciting process to undertake an assurance engagement, and provide advice and sparring around controlling and data quality, and thereby support this new form of reporting progress.” “The result makes me proud to work for Chr. Hansen,” says Director of Sustainability Annemarie Meisling. “Sustainability has always been part of the company DNA, but now we can document our impact.” Areas of impact The company has translated its business impact into its contribution to the UN Global Goals in the following areas:
The company points out the fact that the majority of its gross revenue contributes to the SDGs underlines its relevance now and going forward. “Every day, Chr. Hansen’s ingredients are consumed by more than 1 billion people worldwide,” says CEO Cees de Jong. “This reach gives us a unique opportunity to address some of the global challenges and impact the UN Global Goals with our core products within natural plant health, natural bioprotection for food, and probiotics for animal and human health. This is indeed a meaningful cause to work for and it makes Chr. Hansen a truly relevant company in the world.” Measuring positive and negative impact Chr. Hansen’s products are produced using natural resources and the company says it works to show the same care and awareness throughout its production processes — continuously trying to reduce its energy consumption and any negative environmental and social impacts. It reports on these efforts annually in its sustainability report.
2 Comments
One data center can use more than the amount of energy it takes to power a medium sized town. About 88% to 94% of electricity is used to just keep these centers going. In other words, only about 6% of the energy consumed by data centers is from actually retrieving data. Doesn’t that sound wasteful? Well it is.Green Mountain, a company owned by Smedvig is devoted to building and operating what they term ‘green data centers’. Currently the company operates two green data centers in both Stavanger and Telemark, but it plans to develop in other regions.
The Green Mountain claims its data centers are the greenest data centers in the world, and has committed to power all its IT infrastructure resourcing to 100% renewable energy. It believes Norway is the ideal country to start this concept because the country’s electricity is gentereted nearly 100% by hydropower. Additionally, Norway’s abudance of cold fjords allow for the data centers to be cooled by the earth, and not air-conditions. Green Mountain’s focus on fully transparency in all they do including delivery, including power usage, carbon footprint, temperatures, power cost to visualise usage and are constantly working on improvements to make the process even more sustainable. According to Petter Tømmerås, Chief Sales Officer, using Green Mountain’s data centers is straightforward, “Norway has the lowest energy price in Europe. We save the big players a lot of money compared to the other countries. The cost of storing data in the UK is three times it is here.” Other than Norway’s low energy prices, it’s highly sustainable. The Stavanger location, is a former high security NATO ammunition storage facility built deep inside a mountain, while the Telemark location is spread out in several buildings throughout the “cradle of hydro power” both use the fjords to cool the centers. Tømmerås anticipates green data centers will become the norm when accessibility to renewable power becomes easier. Green Mountain is a supporter of Future of Internet Power, a BSR network initiative to power the internet with 100 percent renewable energy. Technology and storing data in the cloud is only on the rise, which makes storing our data in a sustainable manner even more essential.
The first step that businesses and organizations can take is to start reporting on their impact across the board, on both positive and negative externalities. This reporting does not have to be limited to natural capital reporting but can also encompass societal and economic elements. This reporting will create transparency, and transparency gives opportunity for action. So how to start? Companies, NGOs and governments can inform themselves by examining the Natural Capital Protocol and by using the Natural Capital Toolkit. Together these provide context, methodologies and approaches that business can use to assess and measure their natural capital impact. They also provide support to value the positive externalities and the natural capital services that organizations benefit from, which enables putting negative externalities in perspective. Another route is to start reporting along the GRI Standards developed by the Global Reporting Initiative. GRI Standards enable companies to report on many different material matters and can help with defining where a company has the most impact. GRI Standards do not only go into environmental impact but also include social and economic impact. They are in use around the globe and supported by stock exchanges (including NASDAQ and Oslo Børs), international organizations (UN Global Compact, UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights, OECD Guidelines and others) and referenced by regulators and industry bodies. A third option is to use the Sustainable Development Goals as a basis. Mapping where an organization has an impact, and where it wants to have an impact can be a good way to infuse a sense of urgency and understanding within an organization, from top to bottom. Furthermore, it can bridge to the more detailed GRI Standards reporting or to detailed Natural Capital Accounting. Finally, identifying and putting financial values on the societal, economic and environmental externalities a business generates will put a number on the financial value that business creates for society. This value can be positive, or negative. Either way, it will show where a business can improve its operations and make itself more resilient and effective towards the future. These approaches are not limited to large organizations, they are also applicable to SMEs. The Global Reporting Initiative has even created a toolkit that is specifically applicable to SMEs. Starting to report on impact will be a learning process and might necessitate acquiring or hiring knowledge on the topic. However, the potential benefits of transparent reporting are so large that every company should at least seriously consider mapping its impact and its dependencies on societal, economic and natural capital and on the ecosystem services relevant to the business. Business benefits Overall, these ways of reporting would enable broad risk assessment and risk management. Regulatory risk, climate change risk, dependencies on limited natural resources and the potential for lawsuits stemming from negative externalities (including the social and economic impact that organizations have) would become more visible. Internally, the visibility on risk will help companies to adapt their long-term strategy. It will support changing incentives Unilever style, moving these from short-term, quarterly focused ones to goals that champion long-term resilience. In the words of Paul Polman, Unilever CEO,: "It has allowed us to focus instead on a mature discussion with the market about our long-term strategy." Long-term focus will push for innovation aimed to reduce negative impact and towards the creation of positive externalities. These developments would create corporations that are more resilient in a future where transparency is key and where climate change and its effects will make the opportunity of doing business-as-usual more difficult. This resilience will also reduce the risk of these corporations collapsing and imposing a negative externality on society through lost jobs, wages and tax income. Externally, reporting on natural capital inclusion and other indicators in risk assessment will give long-term investors, banks, and (re)insurers the information necessary to price loans and insurance premiums correctly and to value a corporation more accurately. This transparency can only be good for the market, and will reward those that are early movers. Some corporations have already made the move on the natural capital element, and in a very public way. Puma created its Environmental Profit and Loss (EPL) account back in 2011, showing its impact on natural capital throughout the value chain. Its owner, Kering, followed up in 2013 with an EPL for all its brands. Kering decided to do this because, in their words: "We can no longer see resources as infinite or ignore externalities. We needed a new approach, a way to see the reality behind our supply chains, to understand our environmental impact so that we can reduce it." This is so recent that there is still time to receive that important first mover advantage, and the pay-off could be huge. Preparation for stricter regulation, a higher attractiveness to investors, potentially lower interest rates and insurance premiums, and the attention of consumers towards sustainable companies are all good reasons to take action. Taking action now will have a positive ROI and positive effect on overall company valuation and resilience. Societal benefits Natural Capital Accounting and other reporting methods also bring a plethora of societal benefits, and citizens, governments and regulators should take note of this. As said, end-to-end Natural Capital Accounting shows all positive and negative externalities that a corporation imposes on the environment. Coupled with additional reporting it makes the real benefits a corporation provides to society visible. This transparency would increase ways for consumers to make informed choices about the products they buy. In addition, the negative externalities would now be clearly visible and taxable. This tax-shift would enable a lowering of sales and income taxes across the board. The money currently being spend on subsidies and negative externalities could be invested in society, for example in schooling, innovative research or climate change mitigation. Finally, this transparency towards regulators, consumers, investors and lenders would make companies focus on better stewardship. This would result in lower pollution, reduced negative health impacts and more support for ecosystems, thereby improving biodiversity and overall societal resilience. A Sustainable Future As soon as there is clarity on the relationship between a company and the natural, social and economic capital it affects and depends on, it can move to offsetting its impact. For natural capital this could mean investing in CO2 sequestration, reducing the use and runoff of pollutants, restoring previously impacted ecosystems and informing its suppliers about its expectations on their management practices. On the societal level, it would improve worker's lives, support human rights and increase social cohesion. All this can also be done on a regional or national level by government entities. Eventually, Natural Capital Accounting and other reporting mechanisms would enable sustainable growth and ensure that the most famous sentence of the Brundtland Report can become reality: "[to meet] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Further ReadingIn this series there have been multiple references to articles and books. The following reading list is recommended for those that want to dive deeper into the topic:
And remember to read the previous chapters in the Natural Capital article series: 1. Natural Capital - An Introduction 2. Natural Capital - Human Impact 3. Natural Capital - Ecosystem Services
Yellowstone is a natural and cultural icon and a great example of how natural capital underpins a local economy. Established in 1872, it is the oldest national park in the USA, and possibly the oldest in the world. In 2016, more than 4 million people visited the park. This benefited Montana to the tune of $3.7 billion dollars in visitor spending and 65 000 jobs in its leisure and hospitality sector. Of this, $1 billion and 13 000 jobs go directly to the five counties that benefit most from Yellowstone. In addition there are the social and educational benefits for visitors, and the environmental benefits of Yellowstone. The last cannot be underestimated as Yellowstone is a key habitat for north Americas biggest mammals, and for countless of insects and (migratory) birds. Keeping Yellowstone's natural capital protected and intact is vital for the livelihood of the many families in the region that rely on tourism. As such, it is great to see a broad coalition against requests for gold mine prospecting. Members in this coalition have a varied background – but all agree that the potential 120 jobs and $7.5 million wage income from gold mining do not compare to the risk that it would bring to the continuous value that Yellowstone provides to the region and the USA as a whole. I would argue that (local) governments should always have to weigh the long-term benefits of ecosystem services versus those of short-term, extractive and destructive economic activity. An example of this short-term approach in Norway would be the dumping of mining waste into fjords, which ruins both the ecosystem and visual appeal of the area. Mangrove Forests Mangrove forests are essential ecosystems that provide many direct benefits to coastal communities. They support the local ecosystem by being nurseries and habitats for fish, crabs, mollusks, shrimp and many bird species. In addition, it is estimated that 80% of global fish catch is more or less directly dependent on mangrove forests. With fisheries being worth an estimated $250 billion annually it would make mangrove forests support $200 billion of that. Finally, mangroves are providing protection from tsunamis in a more effective way than man-made dykes. It seems that these ecosystem services are not being valued properly. Between 1980 and 2013 up to 35% of mangrove forest worldwide have been destroyed by overexploitation for timber or the creation of areas for shrimp farms, agriculture or urban development. Not only has this removal wreaked havoc on local natural capital, the shrimp farms are also actively polluting the areas with run-off from the ponds where the shrimp are grown, creating even more negative impact. It is possible to reinvest in mangroves, either by restoring them or by replanting them from scratch, and reap the benefits again. Trials have been run in Vietnam where shrimp farmers invested in bringing back mangrove forests and perform their shrimp farming inside the new ecosystem. The side benefits of this include that they can also grow crabs and clams, thereby diversifying their produce, and that there is less need for pesticides and other pollutants. The results are promising on an economic level and recreate valuable natural capital, which will keep bringing these benefits to the local community. Peatland & Wetlands Wetlands are some of the most important landscapes that we have. They provide us with drinking water, flood protection, carbon storage and large recreational areas that support tourism. In addition, wetlands are core habitats for fish and birds, the latter depending on these for migrations and breeding. Let us dive deeper into carbon storage, water storage and filtration services that this natural capital provides. Many cities depend on wetlands for water filtration and water storage, and these ecosystem services are provided cheaper and more efficient when compared to human build infrastructure. Two major cities that come to mind as great examples are Bogota and New York City. Bogota's 7.5 million people are dependent on the paramo, a wet, tundra like ecosystem, for most of their drinking water. In recent years, and especially after the FARC has left the area, encroachment has increased and the paramo is under threat. The removal of the paramo would have major impact on Bogota's water supply and the livability in the city and the cost of man-made systems would many, many times exceed the cost of keeping the paramo intact while only providing part of the benefits that the intact paramo provides for free. The best way is to regulate what is permissible and to set up agreements with local farmers to protect this fragile ecosystem. This is not easy, even when funding is available, but it is possible. New York City, which has the largest unfiltered water supply system in the USA, is a textbook case. It has assured a clean water supply by investing $1 billion in best practice farming and forestry in its water catchment area. This might sound like a large investment, but it saved the city billions as the cost of a man-made water filtration system would have been $6-8 billion, in addition to an operating cost of $500 million a year (Tony Juniper, What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?, 2013). Wetlands, and especially peatlands, are also incredibly efficient at storing carbon. For example, Scottish peatlands store approximately 1.6 billion tons of carbon, which is close to 5% of global C02 emissions in 2015. The Amazon, 250 times larger than the peatlands of Scotland, stores only 3 times as much carbon. Investing in peatlands could be a way for business to offset CO2 emissions while providing additional benefits to boot. Health Services Natural capital in the form of urban green spaces, planned recreational areas and forests, wetlands, rivers, lakes etc is important to our physical and mental wellbeing. Numerous research has examined these effects and it turns out that Investing in nature can be very cost effective for our health services. One example is based on data collected in a Pennsylvanian hospital. It examined 46 patients that underwent gallbladder surgery. It turned out that the 23 patients that had rooms overlooking a natural scene had shorter hospital stays and took fewer painkillers than the 23 patients assigned to rooms looking out on a brick wall. In the UK, a research project showed that the richness of green spaces affected the psychological wellbeing of the 300 interviewees. It turned out that access to biodiversity correlated with psychological benefits, ranging from ability to self-reflect to reduced stress levels. Finally, a study in the Netherlands of 250 000 people, showed that those living in greener areas felt healthier than those that lived in cityscapes (Tony Juniper, What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?, 2013). With healthcare costs rising there seems to be a solid business case in investing in greenery, either by governments, care providers or insurance companies. The environment does not only benefit our mental and physical health, there are numerous drugs and tools used in the pharma industry that are dependent on natural capital, be it flora or fauna. For these, we must be very careful to not overuse their sources, because once depleted we might lose them forever. The blue-blooded horseshoe crab, for example, provides incredible support to our health system. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure for how long we can count on this support. Why? Their blood has a unique and invaluable talent for finding e.coli bacteria that stick around on medical equipment, even after cleaning. The growing need to identify and remove these e.coli bacteria has created an insatiable demand for this blood. Every year the medical testing industry catches a half-million horseshoe crabs to drain part of their blood before redepositing them in the sea. There are serious questions about the impact of the medical industry on the crab population and for how long this growing demand can be sustained if current practice continues. We would be better off if we would work on synthetic, lab-produced solutions, whenever we find something that is so valuable and important to society. In summary, at every turn natural capital and ecosystem services underpin our society and economic output. Investing in natural capital, whether to maintain it or increase it, is a valuable strategy for both business and governments that will generate more benefits than wanton exploitation. Next week in the Natural Capital article serie: 4. Natural Capital - Implementing Natural Capital Accounting Previous chapters 1. Natural Capital - An Introduction 2. Natural Capital - Human Impact
After the switch to agricultural society we also started changing the physical landscape, clearing forests to create fields and diverting watercourses. Early on, this impact was negligible but as population grew it increased more and more. The Roman era included massive deforestation, which continued for hundreds of years all over Europe. It is estimated that deforestation in Germany after the 1500's was 50 times higher than the natural regeneration rate of forests. This also affected water levels, watercourses, soil quality and biodiversity. Flying over Europe now, one can see all the towns, villages and fields but large forests are rare. Flying over Borneo, palm oil plantations are visible as scars in the rainforest. Taken to its extreme, deforestation in the small, closed off society of Easter Island caused a complete collapse of society. The history of forestry is mirrored in humanity's approach to other resources. Unsustainable hunting and fishing, damaging resource extraction and unsustainable production processes have ensured that no part of the globe is left pristine. Our footprint is truly global, from the highest mountains to the deepest ocean, and even the most remote islands are covered in plastic. Our historical relation to our natural capital can be described in four words: cutting, digging, hunting and polluting. Now that we have reached, and crossed, the limits of our planet this approach finally seems to be changing. Recognition of natural capital and a move to sustainabilityIt took until 1800 for someone to mention our destructive relationship towards services that nature provides for free, and in perpetuity. The famous scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt noted the following in his Personal Narrative, based on his travels in South America in 1799-1804: "When forests are destroyed, as they are everywhere in America … the springs are entirely dried up, or become less abundant. The beds of rivers, remaining dry during a part of the year, are converted into torrents, whenever great rains fall on the heights. … the waters falling in rain are no longer impeded in their course … they furrow during heavy showers the sides of the hills, bear down the loosened soil, and form those sudden inundations, that devastate the country." (Andrea Wulf, The Invention of Nature, 2015) Humboldt and his writing inspired many, including giants of biology and ecology. Darwin brought his books along on the voyage with the Beagle, Henry Thoreau found inspiration for his famous Walden and he heavily influenced the ecological thinking of John Muir, who eventually found the Sierra Club. During the 200 years since Humboldt's writing, our position towards the environment has changed for the better, propelled by early organizations like the Sierra Club or the Ramblers' Associations in the UK who have worked on access to and preservation of our natural capital. Our natural capital has also found more and more recognition in politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, wrote the following in the 1930's: "I happened to see an editorial…that talked about "balancing the budget of our resources." …we have lost sight of the fact that the natural resources of our land – our permanent capital - are being converted into those nominal evidences of wealth at a faster rate than our real wealth is being replaced." A seminal moment some 50 years later was the publication of the Brundtland Report which advocated for "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Still, this forward looking thinking has not been translated yet in strong political will and regulatory action. But in business it seems that our natural capital has been, and still is, seen as a resource to be used, not preserved and managed. It can be argued that the rise of the Limited Liability Company (LLC), first in the USA and then the rest of the world, has fueled profit seeking and the externalization of any negatives. The creation of the LLC removed personal liability from owners and directors and created a "corporate personhood" where a company could go bankrupt, but not its management or shareholders. This removal of personal responsibility in turn increased both risk seeking and destructive behaviour focused on pure financial profit. In addition, the move away from societal responsibility by corporations was enshrined in law in the case of Dodge vs Ford in 1919. While Henry Ford wanted to "employ still more men; to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number" the Dodge brothers, who were major investors, wanted a larger dividend. They took Ford to court and the final ruling stated that "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." (Pavan Sukhdev, Corporation 2020, 2012) There was no mention of stakeholders or society, and it supported the vast majority of companies to focus on financial gain only while disregarding society. These developments have led to an unbridled pillaging of environmental resources without regard for biodiversity or society. Hunting for profits, negatives are externalized without taking into account the impacts business has on human health or the environment. Two great examples are leaded gasoline and tobacco. Leaded gasoline entered the market in 1923 and a year later it was obvious it could have negative health impacts as workers in direct contact with the product started falling ill. Standard Oil and General Motors fought tooth and nail to keep it around and it was only banned in the USA in 1995. In the meantime, GM and Standard Oil enjoyed tax breaks while selling a product that was clearly hazardous. Tobacco companies do the same by selling products that have proven and detrimental health effects. Having lost part of the fight in Europe and North America they are now aggressively marketing in Africa and Asia and pressuring governments there to limit any regulation that could limit smoking. The same can be said for coal producers and users, who profit while externalizing the bill for all direct pollution and CO2 emissions. This approach by corporations coupled with a political focus on economic growth and with regulators that are not focused on externalized costs has led us to the situation where the valuation of natural capital is not related to the benefits it provides, with all its negative consequences. But now it finally seems that corporations are focusing more on sustainable ways of working, on reporting their impact through various metrics, on preserving natural capital and on reaping sustainable benefits from ecosystem services. It is tentative, and there are no massive shifts yet, but the few forerunners like Patagonia, Unilever and Kering show how sustainable business and company growth can go hand in hand. This shift not only makes business sense, it is a necessity. To quote T.C. Smout: "The human attitude to the environment…has always been shaped by the twin considerations of use and delight…Now our use has become so insensitive that not only is our delight threatened, but possibly our survival" (T.C. Smout, Nature Contested, 2000). Next week in the Natural Capital article serie: 2. Natural Capital - Ecosystem Services Previous chapter: 1. Natural Capital - An Introduction
The world population is now estimated to have reached nearly 7.6 billion. What do almost all of these individuals use every single day whether they come from a big city or from a tiny village? Whether they are wealthy or living in poverty? Whether they live in the East or the West? Despite race, religion, ethnicity or gender – there is some things that just about every one of these people use every day. Yes. Textiles The clothes you wear, the materials you sleep on, dry yourself with, have on your feet or on your head. These are important to everyone, everywhere - for protection, for warmth, for style, for identity. Not so strange then that we, in The Textile Interchange Project (The TIP), teach young people about sustainability through exploration of the textile industry which in 2016 was valued at 439.1 billion USD. The TIP has just completed its pilot phase (August 2017) and is currently developing plans for the next few years. In the pilot phase a group of representatives from the Norwegian trade unions LO and HK and the Enterprise federation for Norway Virke joined forces with businesses in the Norwegian fashion and textile sector and two Oslo schools to create an educational resource about sustainability, ethical trade and decent work. This educational resource uses the textile industry as a case study for exploration of all these topics and more. It takes young people on a journey through the entire supply chain for a typical textile business and goes in to depth of what happens during these processes. What choices are made, what actions are taken, what ethical, financial and practical challenges surface. The aim is to teach young people in Norway about how this entire industry works, the benefits it brings, the challenges it causes and what can be done to bring about change. There are examples of change happening, we just need more of it. The textile industry is not sustainable in its current form, not many of our industries are – and sustainability can’t be an afterthought – it must be a part of the process from start to finish. That is why The TIP wants to focus on inspiring young people to feel that they can be that change. We educate young people not to glorify or demonise the textile industry but to present the reality of the industry and to challenge young people to then do something with the knowledge they have gained. It is not only young people that can benefit from this kind of education, however. Very few of us know or care about where our clothes come from. The current state of industry is not sustainable but neither are the choices we make as consumers. So what can we do? It is not easy to be responsible and live a sustainable life and we certainly are not in the habit of thinking about it when it comes to our clothes and shoes, but here are three simple ways you can begin starting today. #1 Think before you buy – Before you buy something ask yourself do I need this? Will I use it? If the answer is no, do not buy it there and then. Make conscious, active choices, always. #2 Recycle or repair – Yes, that’s right, no need to throw anything away. Norwegians throw away about 10 kg of clothes per person per year! Many clothes and shoes with just a little fix can be as good as new. Also, places like Fretex, H&M, UFF and recycling stations will take your old shoes and textiles no matter what condition they are in. What cannot be resold or upcycled can find a new life as insulation. #3 Ask questions – Before you buy something, do your research. All the information you need is at your fingertips. Ask businesses where clothes are produced, what kind of conditions these workers have, where materials are sourced? Send questions to businesses online or ask people working in the shops. Think about the research you do before you buy a car and do the same. The TIP is trying to bring about the change that needs to happen – and things are happening. Join us on 15-16th of September for Tekstilaksjonen at Vulkan where you can recycle, repair and donate shoes and textiles and learn more about how to think sustainability every damn day! For more about The TIP and tekstilaksjonen check out www.tipyourlife.com and Tekstilaksjonen 2017
Image Credit: Carlsberg Carlsberg Group has pledged to eliminate carbon emissions and halve water usage at its breweries worldwide by 2030, as part of a new sustainability drive, launched in June 2017. The beer maker also intends to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity for its breweries by 2022, as one of several intermediate goals. The ‘Together Towards Zero’ programme has been a year in the making and is consciously aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. As well as carbon and water, the programme – which is an integral part of Carlsberg’s Sail '22 strategy – is also targeting significantly reduced health and safety impacts due to irresponsible drinking and accidents. Carlsberg has adopted a phased approach here to ensure that any momentum is maintained. By 2022, it hopes to achieve 50 percent reduction in brewery carbon emissions and to have eliminated the use of coal at its factories. It is also targeting a 15 percent reduction in ‘beer-in-hand’ (Scope 3 emissions) carbon footprint by the same date, working in partnership with 30 suppliers. Asked to assess the scale of challenge that lies ahead, Carlsberg’s sustainability director, Simon Hoffmeyer Boas, told Sustainable Brands: “If you ask any business to decarbonise completely, it will be a huge task.” He added that it will signal a new wave of innovation for the brewer: “It will require changes in the way we buy our products, in the way we produce our beer and the machinery we use for that.” Given that packaging materials account for the majority of Carlsberg’s carbon footprint (around 40 percent), the company will look to work more closely with key packaging suppliers to find solutions to drive those impacts down. Hoffmeyer Boas also points to the use of on-site renewables to increase efficiencies. Carlsberg’s Dali brewery in China, for instance, has installed over 8,000 rooftop solar panels to help mitigate annual CO2 emissions of more than 1,800 tonnes; the energy generated from these panels is meeting roughly 20 percent of the brewery’s electricity needs. On water, the beer maker aims to reduce brewery water use by 25 percent by 2022, before looking to double that reduction by 2030. It will also work with partners to improve water management in high-risk areas around selected breweries. “This is a very difficult target to reach, but we are confident that it’s the right thing to do, to set out on this direction,” Hoffmeyer Boas said. “We have done some analysis with WWF that shows that 15 of our sites in Asia are sited in areas that might have water scarcity risks in the future.” Carlsberg is already looking to get its water-to-beer ratios down. As of 2015, Hoffmeyer Boas says the company’s average ratio stands at 3.4 litres of water per litre of beer. The intention is to reduce that figure to 2.7 litres by 2022, and then to 1.7 litres by 2030. And for those breweries sited in high-risk areas of water scarcity, the company will look to go even further – exploring the potential to go below a 2.0 ratio by 2022. Like many other leading beer brands, Carlsberg is keen to highlight the issue of responsible drinking, to prevent misuse of alcohol and associated behaviours such as drunk driving and underage drinking. New targets in this area include offering 100 percent distribution of alcohol-free beer by 2022 to expand consumer choice and forming new partnerships to encourage responsible consumption. Hoffmeyer Boas considers valued judgements around alcohol consumption to be a crucial part of the sustainability mix. “To me, sustainability is all about going above and beyond legislation. So if we undertake a massive effort in responsible drinking to prevent people from misusing our products, we are going beyond what is generally expected of us as a company”. In order to achieve its new set of goals, Carlsberg acknowledges the need for a deeper level of staff engagement. It plans to run a comprehensive internal campaign, encouraging employees to come up with their own ideas of how to work towards zero – this might be at an operational level, or through sharing best practice. Importantly, it will be linked to performance. “There’s no doubt that Together Towards Zero will be integrated into KPIs across the business, and that’s an ongoing process,” Hoffmeyer Boas said. “As you can imagine there’s a lot of work being put into calculations and roadmaps, so we’re still defining exactly how. But we have a CEO who has explicitly requested that this is done.” Ultimately, Hoffmeyer Boas hopes the new programme will not only demonstrate how Carlsberg is responding to increasing consumer demand for more sustainable products, but also build greater resilience into the company’s supply chain going forward. “We believe that we are de-risking our operation and also opening ourselves up to much more opportunity and innovative ways of doing things. I’m not saying this will be a walk in the park … but we are drawing a line in the sand and saying this is the company we want to be.”
During EAT Stockholm Food Forum fourth annual event, 500 of the brightest minds were brought together from science, politics, business, and civil society to exchange ideas for one goal. How can global leaders shift food systems towards sustainability, health, security, and equity within the boundaries of our planet?This year, Sustainability Hub hosted a competence forum at EAT focusing on Co-Designing a Sustainable Future. A positive future scenario where sustainability, disruptive technological change, and Scandinavian values served as the framework for the workshop discussion. Delegates determined what actions individuals, business leaders, and society in general need to take to reach a sustainable future. Then through an interdisciplinary approach, delegates created synergies of the topics determining actions for a sustainable future. The main outcomes from the S-HUB seminar are presented below. Actions towards a sustainable future
The Starmus Festival recently turned the tech city of Trondheim upside down. A symposium of science, art and music addressed peoples’ curiosity of life and the universe. Key takeaways? In the short term, we need sustainability to support a comfortable life on Earth. In the long term, we might have to migrate to Mars...Thinking big is thinking sustainable
”When people ask me which planet is my favourite, I always say Earth. It’s a truly unique place in the universe, so we should take good care of it.” - Terry Virts, NASA astronaut and National Geographic photographer Climate disruptions presents a massive challenge, but also opportunities unseen before in the history of humanity. Is it possible to prioritise resources for both space exploration and safeguarding planet Earth? In response to this, the economists’ message was a challenge to the global finance community: could we change the current valuation methods to promote true sustainability covered by economic, social, environmental and governance perspectives simultaneously? Some nations have already started to measure successful development through the quantification of life quality, instead of traditional output, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Which business models will excel in fifty years if this becomes mainstream? Communication is critical Novel ways of communicating is one of the major strengths of Starmus. In addition to a broad public program and world-class speakers, the interactive format had the ability to inspire and explain phenomena through first-hand experiences. An example is the ClimArt Pollution Pod artwork, which provides domes of differing air quality from five cities around the worldwide. How does it feel to desperately want to leave Sao Paolo after five seconds because the air quality is comparable to a sauna full of diesel molecules and burned rubber? To barely see the exit in Beijing because of the thick smog? The immediate relief of returning to the rain rinsed freshness of Trondheim’s air is sharply contrasted by thoughts to the millions of people who are stuck in poverty and have no chance of escaping the pollution that blankets their everyday life. In all its urgency, air pollution’s effect on public health has become a major driver for addressing environmental and climate related issues. Migration to MarsTo survive as a species in the long term, a common perception among the speakers was that humanity needs to explore outer space and colonize new planets. Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmitt and Charlie Duke are three of the six living moonwalkers left on Earth. In a joint panel discussion, their view on the future of space travel resonated with Stephen Hawking’s powerful message. Hawking was the first person to explain the fate of the universe by uniting the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Mr Hawking’s major concern was the future of humanity due to the immense pressure on planet Earth’s life supporting systems; physical resources being drained at alarming rates, deforestation and loss of biodiversity. However, establishing ecosystems in environments we know little about, on planets with no atmosphere, is an immense challenge. Civilization as we know it has the limited age of 6,000 years. With this humble existence in time, we are minions in the span of the 13.8 billion years believed to be the age of the universe. Comparing this time frame with Stephen Hawking’s forecast of interstellar travel within the coming 250 years to ensure the long-term survival of humanity, time is very limited. Short term survival could be acheived though fighting climate disruptions, and the stepwise colonization of space from the Moon to Mars to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri. Interdisciplinary collaborationStarmus inspires us to think the unthinkable and explore the edge of what is possible. The bigger the challenge, the higher demand for global unity and commitment of resources. Space ventures depend on international resource pools, as does disruptions of the climate and ecosystems. We are not merely passengers on the beautiful spaceship Earth, we are crewmates. Earth’s atmosphere is a thin protective layer that provides shelter from the lethal radiation and cold darkness of space. This protective layer needs to be balanced and is crucial for keeping our spaceship comfortable for humans and nature to maintain life supporting systems. Like the astronauts in outer space depend 100% on their companions’ competencies, we also rely on other nations experiences and abilities to create global solutions. Business and public-private partnerships will be a major force to drive the new era of space travel and sustainable development. The challenges are simply too big to be handled by single actors or nations, and resources too limited. The need for international collaboration is evident, and the frameworks are emerging. Starting with Earth’s planetary boundaries, the power of international collaboration efforts to reach the Paris Agreement and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals has gained irreversible momentum. There is hope for a future of sustainable life on Earth and beyond. After all, there is no other option for a species of curious explorers. If you wish to see the Starmus speakers, you can get an overview of the sessions from the program and watch the complete recordings online.
Money and Value Our financial system is only a recent invention. The first evidence of the use of money only dates to the introduction of shekels in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. These 5000 years are a blink of an eye seeing that Homo Sapiens has been around for the last 300 000 years. For 290 000 of those, Homo Sapiens lived in small, independent groups, in which a barter system was sufficient to provide the necessary exchange mechanism. Around 12 000 years ago, we switched to an agricultural society which generated more goods, a higher population growth, increased economic activity and created large, interconnected trade networks. It also created the current financial system, which values a forest only when cut down and sold and does not value the long term and continuous benefits a forest creates. Yuval Noal Harari provides us with an interesting perspective in his excellent book Sapiens. He expands on how money enabled the equal exchange of (physical and abstract) goods and, shortly, the potential negative side effects: "Money is based on two universal principles:
"These principles have enabled millions of strangers to cooperate effectively in trade and industry, but these seemingly benign principles have a dark side. When everything is convertible, and when trust depends on anonymous coins and cowry shells, it corrodes local traditions, intimate relationships and human values, replacing them with the cold laws of supply and demand." "As money brings down the dams of community, religion and state, the world is in danger of becoming one big and rather heartless marketplace.", (Harari, Y.N., Sapiens, 2011) We currently surround ourselves by both the benefits that this financial system brings us and by a version of this heartless marketplace where financial gains often trump communal benefits. The tragedy of the commons is a reflection of it, and short-term financial gain trumps, in many instances, the case for long-term planning and long-term value creation for society. Humanity's Impact As humanity spread across the globe and its population grew, it imposed a massive impact on its surroundings. There is conclusive evidence that ecosystem collapse occurred in many areas that early humans invaded, wiping out large land mammals and countless of smaller ones as humanity completely upended ecosystems. During the last 2 centuries, humanity has experienced tremendous growth compared to the millennia preceding them. World population grew 7-fold between the year 0 and 1800, and then 7-fold again in the last 200 years, creating immense need for food production and raw materials. Economic output increased by a factor of about 60 in the last 200 years. Consequently, humanity has massively increased its impact on the natural world. On land, wilderness is now incredibly fragmented and only a tiny percentage consists of the large, completely uninterrupted tracts of nature that are necessary for the support of resilient ecosystems. Finally, capable of impacting the sea on a scale similar as our land, a study published in Nature estimates that we have lost more than 90% of our stocks of cod, halibut, marlin, tuna and other large fish in the last 65 years. In general, global fish stocks are on the verge of collapse. Human induced climate change (see this excellent visualization to show temperature changes, based on IPCC data) is already affecting all areas of the globe. The estimated costs of climate change to humanity and the environment are skyrocketing. Warnings of ecosystem collapse and mass extinction abound. Economic growth that does not take into account its underlying natural capital is unsustainable and incredibly costly in the long run. It is also clear that slowing, halting and reversing the current impact we have on natural capital is a Herculean task. Biodiversity loss, degradation of ecosystems and climate change all have their effect, and are all tough and costly problems to tackle. To illustrate, the IPCC concluded that ensuring greenhouse gas concentrations do not exceed a level that would offer a 66% chance of avoiding global warming of more than 2ºC would mean losses in global consumption of 1-4% in 2030, 2-6% in 2050 and 3-11% in 2100. However, the potential cost of unchecked climate change can run up to 10% of global GDP by 2050. It is uplifting to see that taking action is cheaper than not taking action. Internalizing the External Impact How can this short-term focused and heartless marketplace described by Harari be changed into a marketplace where short-term financial profit does not rule? Currently, economic activity is measured in the financial terms of revenue and profit. However, negative externalities that economic activity imposes on the other parts of the economy, society and environment are generally not included. Carbon emissions are not taxed at a rate that compensates society for the cost that they will impose later, emissions of NOx are not taxed at the cost that they impose on public health and pollution is generally not taxed (and penalized) at a rate that covers the cost that it imposes on society and the environment. Digging into the principal of our natural capital is established practice, and the regulations limiting this and forcing companies to focus on sustainable production are not strong enough (one only has to look at the continuing collapse of tuna stocks despite ongoing warnings). These costs that organizations externalize and thus impose on society and the environment can be classified as hidden subsidies or handouts. By internalizing these external costs and putting them on a balance sheet it is possible to see both the real benefit provided by economic activity and the amount by which current and future taxpayers subsidize an economic activity. It puts a value on the natural capital that we use. It also provides a view on both the actionable areas where organizations can reduce their external cost and the areas where regulators can step in. The reasoning of a Texas judge, who ruled that ExxonMobil saved some $14.2 million by not complying with clean air act rules and regulations and fined ExxonMobil $21.3 million for these transgressions, is a strong example of forcing the internalization of costs. The next logical step is to take action on these externalities and to move to a net positive impact on the natural capital that underpins all social and economic activity. This will reduce the impact of climate change, reduce loss of biodiversity and reduce negative social impacts of economic activity. In the end, we should strive to increase the amount of natural capital that supports our society and environment. Next week in the Natural Capital article serie: 2. Natural Capital - Human Impact
|
WANT TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE HERE?
Have a read at our Publishing Guidelines: NEWSLETTER
Subscribe to our newsletter to get the sustainability articles sent to you every month. EDITOR
Lauren Guido |