Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Deb Abbey Named as Social Investment Organization Executive Director

The Social Investment Organization announced that SRI veteran Deb Abbey has been named as the organization’s new executive director, replacing Eugene Ellmen.

Abbey was one of the first investment advisors to focus on SRI and was the founder of Real Assets, an SRI investment management firm. The company was acquired by Vancity in 2005.

Abbey is the author of two books on sustainable investing, The 50 Best Ethical Stocks for Canadians — co-authored with Michael Jantzi — and Global Profit and Global Justice, Using Your Money to Change the World.

“We are extremely pleased to have someone with Deb’s experience and knowledge joining us as Executive Director,” said Gary Hawton, President of the SIO. “Her work ethic and passion for Socially Responsible Investing are going to allow us to move the organization forward over the next few years.“

Abbey will be located in a regional office which is being created in Vancouver.  The other SIO staff will remain in Toronto.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Grist: Corporate sustainability is not sustainable


From today's Grist

Corporate sustainability is not sustainable
By Auden Schendler and Michael Toffel
Grist guest contributor

Green initiatives are ubiquitous these days, implemented with zeal at companies like Dupont, IBM, Walmart, and Walt Disney. The programs being rolled out — lighting retrofits, zero-waste factories, and carpool incentives — save money and provide a green glow. Most large companies are working to reduce energy use and waste, and many have integrated sustainability into strategic planning. What’s not to like?

Well, for starters, these actions don’t meaningfully address the primary barrier to sustainability, climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, without action, global temperatures will likely increase 6 degrees C by 2100, “which would have devastating consequences for the planet.” This means more super droughts, floods, storms, fires, crop failures, sea-level rise, and other major disruptions. “Sustainability” simply isn’t possible in the face of such a problem, as Superstorm Sandy demonstrated.

So despite perceptions that “sustainable business” is up and running, the environment reminds us we’re failing to deal with the problem at anywhere near sufficient scale. Because climate change requires a systemic solution, which only governments can provide, firms serious about addressing it have a critical role well beyond greening their own operations. They must spur government action. But few are.

“Green business” as currently practiced focuses on limited operational efficiencies — cutting carbon footprint and waste reduction — and declares victory. But these measures fail to even dent the climate problem. And the proof is easy: Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Last month, we hit 400 parts per million atmospheric CO2 for the first time in 3 million years. Worse, though, such small-ball initiatives are a distraction: We fiddle around the edges thinking we’re making a real difference (and getting accolades), while the planet inexorably warms.

The reality is that even if one company eliminates its carbon footprint entirely — as Microsoft admirably pledged to do — global warming roars on. That’s because the problem is too vast for any single business: Solving climate change means we must switch to mostly carbon-free energy sources by 2050 or find a way to affordably capture carbon dioxide emissions, both monumental tasks.

Even several very large companies cannot, on their own, get us there. In fact, historically, no big environmental problem — from air and water pollution to acid rain or ozone depletion — has ever been solved by businesses volunteering to do the right thing. We ought not presume that voluntary measures will solve this one.

But nobody seems to have noticed. Most green scorecards, corporate strategies, media, and shareholder analyses of businesses focus almost entirely on operational greening activities and policies, but not on whether companies can continue on their current course in a climate-changed world. In other words, such analyses don’t actually measure sustainability.

So what does a meaningful corporate sustainability program look like in the era of climate change?

First, corporate leaders need to directly lobby state and national politicians to introduce sweeping, aggressive bipartisan climate legislation such as a carbon fee-and-dividend program. Strong policy in G8 nations is all the more important because it removes excuses for inaction by China, India, and other countries with rapidly growing carbon footprints.

Second, CEOs should insist that trade groups prioritize climate policy activism and withdraw from associations that refuse to do so, like when Pacific Gas & Electric, Apple, and Nike left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, businesses should market their climate activism so that customers and suppliers appreciate their leadership, understand what matters, and follow suit. Such marketing is also education on one of the key issues of our time.

Fourth, companies should partner with effective non-governmental organizations such as the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, Protect Our Winters, and Citizen’s Climate Lobby to support their work, become educated on climate science and policy solutions, and understand effective lobbying.

Fifth, managers should demand that suppliers assess their climate impact and set public targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But companies that are multiplying their influence in supply chains — like Dell and Walmart — must not miss the larger and more important opportunity to change the rules of the game through activism.

Even in the United States, a climate laggard, some companies are already responding to climate change in the appropriate way.

Nike, for example, moved beyond operational greening by helping to create BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy), which brings its members to Washington, D.C., to lobby for aggressive energy and climate legislation.

Starbucks has also taken out full-page ads in major newspapers to raise public awareness about the importance of climate action and has lobbied the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to explain the threat climate poses to coffee.

These companies are the exception. Unfortunately, even businesses that are sustainability leaders — like clothing manufacturer Patagonia, a business we admire — don’t recognize the primacy of climate change. Instead, it includes climate in a basket of equally weighted issues, like protecting oceans, forests, or fisheries. But that’s misguided: Climate vastly trumps (and often includes) those other environmental concerns.

Businesses that claim to be green but aren’t loudly making their voices heard on the need for government action on climate change are missing the point. They are not just dodging the key challenge of sustainability; they are distracting us from what really matters.



Michael Toffel is an associate professor at Harvard Business School, where he specializes in business and environment issues.



Auden Schendler is vice president of sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company, author of Getting Green Done, and a board member of Protect Our Winters.



Wednesday, May 15, 2013

WTO rules on one solar dispute, bigger lurk

Reprinted from this morning's Thomson Reuters Morning news Call...


Rejection by the world's trade body last week of preferential support for domestic solar panel makers in Canadian province Ontario brings helpful but limited guidance in a growing number of other disputes.

The case involved domestic content requirements, which block foreign companies from participating in national support programmes, and which are intended to suckle local manufacturers. The World Trade Organisation's rejection of Canada's appeal, in a complaint brought by Japan and the European Union, should clarify similar cases, where China claims discrimination in certain EU countries and the United States has opened a dispute with India.

It does not, however, address a growing, separate set of more complicated trade complaints regarding perceived dumping (which means selling at a loss to gain market share) where China, India, the European Union and the United States are all considering or have imposed import duties.

The global industry needs similar clarity on dumping, to avoid a solar trade war where Germany's preference for an amicable resolution with China is encouraging.

Both types of dispute expose a tension in the goals of renewable energy programmes between jobs and low-cost clean power.

One aim is to boost "green jobs", where countries are keen to grab a foothold in a growing clean technology sector, which clashes with another to cut costs.

Rules preferring domestic content make little sense right now, if the aim is to ramp up domestic solar manufacturing when the global industry is embroiled in a savage shakeout of over-capacity where some distressed companies are selling photovoltaic (PV) modules at fire sale prices.

Action against dumping, meanwhile, may directly raise the price of solar modules through the use of import duties.

The Ontario case was based on the Canadian province's "Green Energy Act" of 2009. The Act allowed developers to earn a price premium, or feed-in tariff, for renewable power if they met local content rules.

Those minimum domestic content requirements were 50 percent for wind projects and 60 percent for solar, as published in an Ontario Power Authority "programme overview".

Japan's complaint was partly based on Article 3.4 of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The paragraph states: "The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use."

Japan's complaint - subsequently joined by the European Union - was supported by a WTO resolution panel in December, and upheld last week against Canada's appeal.

The finding is likely to clarify similar complaints.

For example, India has announced a goal to install 22 gigawatts of grid-connected and off-grid solar power by 2022, under its Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (NSM). Under phase 1, which ends this year, developers could only use solar modules made in India. Phase 2 may relax the requirement that all projects meet domestic content requirement (DCR) rules.

"Some capacity will be kept for bidding with domestic content requirement," says a phase 2 consultancy document published on the ministry's website, suggesting other capacity will be available for foreign firms.

India has proposed to widen DCR to cover more advanced thin film technologies where U.S.-based First Solar is a world leader.

The Ontario case may not bode well for the Indian programme.

The United States formally initiated a dispute at the WTO on Feb. 11, by requesting consultations with India in the same manner as Japan had with Canada in September 2010.

"India's measures appear to be inconsistent with Article 3.4 of the GATT 1994 because the measures appear to provide less favourable treatment to imported solar cells and solar modules than that accorded to like products originating in India," it said, referencing identical articles and trade measures to Japan's complaint.

Similarly, last November China requested consultations with the European Union, Greece and Italy, "relating to the feed-in tariff programs of EU member states including but not limited to Italy and Greece". Italian energy laws have provided a premium on the feed-in tariff of up to 10 percent for solar PV systems containing a minimum 60 percent European content by value, various solar companies report.

The latest WTO ruling will probably benefit the industry if it motivates countries to source solar modules on the basis of lowest price rather than origin.

But public pressure remains to do the opposite, as illustrated by a letter in March from an influential group of U.S. environmental and development non-government organisations to the U.S. chief trade negotiator. The letter, signed by 350.org, ActionAid USA, Friends of the Earth U.S., Greenpeace USA, Sierra Club, among others, expressed "deep concern" about the country's solar dispute with India.

They argued that India should be encouraged to develop a domestic solar industry for three reasons: to increase the share of solar in the Indian energy market; increase political support for clean energy programmes by creating local jobs; and to avoid catastrophic climate change.

It did not mention an impact on costs.

India presently has manufacturing capacity of 848 MW for the production of solar cells and 1,932 MW for solar modules, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy reported last December in its "Phase II – Policy Document". It is targeting by 2020 manufacturing capacity for 4,000-5,000 MW of solar technologies (this appears to refer to finished modules) and 2,000 MW of solar cells, according to an overview published on the ministry website.

Just now may not be the optimum time for ramping up manufacturing capacity, however, either for established companies already bleeding cash, or for countries planning a new industry where they can buy more cheaply from companies with mothballed capacity selling at distressed prices.



--- Gerard Wynn, Reuters market analyst

--- The views expressed are his own



Thursday, May 9, 2013

Update: BCE facing resolution on gender diversity

At this morning’s Annual General Shareholders meeting, 5.5% of votes were cast in favour of a resolution brought by Vancity Investment Management to ‘undertake a review of BCE Inc.'s diversity policies and initiatives, using the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles as guidance, to identify and address gaps or inadequacies; and give due consideration to the value to the company of endorsing the CEO Statement of Support for the Principles.’ That’s enough to keep the resolution alive; it needed more than 3% in order to be brought back next year.


A jubilant Dermot Foley, in Toronto to present the resolution, said he met the CEO and some senior executives at the AGM. “Victory is not the percentage of votes we got for the resolution, but the opportunity we now have to continue the dialogue with BCE management”

At present, Mountain Equipment Co-op’s CEO is the only Canadian CEO to have signed the CEO Statement of Support for the Women’s’ Empowerment Principles. However, there are 559 CEO’s around the world who have made this commitment, including those of large American companies such as Microsoft and PepsiCo.

As a signatory to the UN Global Compact and a leader in diversity in Canada, BCE Inc. has an opportunity to bring greater visibility to this initiative, gain competitive advantage in the market for talent and further strengthen the company’s position as a socially responsible corporation.

The Global Gender Gap 2012 by the World Economic Forum states ‘Because women account for one-half of a country’s potential talent base, a nation’s competitiveness in the long term depends significantly on whether and how it educates and utilizes its women.’

Foley feels, “looking at the data from the WEF report, we can see a huge wave on the horizon. Change is coming to corporate Canada. Either you are going to be ahead of it, or you are going to be chasing it. Ultimately, it’s not about winning on a resolution. We want CEOs to sign on to the Principles.”





See details in our post of April 11th.