Posted in Sustainable Business

Success in Sustainability Combines These 3 Ingredients

Commit. Collaborate. Communicate.

That seems to be the mantra these days when it comes to tackling the complexity of sustainability challenges. Whether the topic is carbon removal, renewable energy procurement, transforming supply chains or creating a circular economy, inevitably the road to success is paved with these three ingredients …

The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, organised by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and U.N. Environment, sets forth a set of broad targets, including eliminating problematic and unnecessary plastic packaging, increasing reusable packaging and making all plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable.

It’s a bold and audacious set of commitments, and the global brands included among the signatories — Coca-Cola, Danone, Diageo, Unilever, Mars, Nestlé, Philips, SC Johnson and others — aren’t likely to see this as a cavalier, check-the-box P.R. exercise. Indeed, these companies are all but screaming, “Judge us on what we do, not what we say we’ll do.”Success in Sustainability Combines These 3 Ingredients - cardboard

Most if not all of them are already on a path to deliver on such promises, but it will take a great deal more hard work to make good on them — maybe more work than some of these companies fully appreciate. It will require collaborating with their entire value chain — or is it now a value loop? — and communicating openly and authentically how well they’re doing in achieving their targets.

We’re seeing this three-legged stool — commit-collaborate-communicate — throughout the sustainability profession and the emerging clean economy.

We saw it in spades at our recent VERGE conference: cities pulling together to become “smart” and sustainable; big companies collaborating to electrify their fleets; companies partnering to scale up renewable energy purchases; companies looking externally for partners to help build new circular models for products and materials; companies working together to create new value propositions around removing carbon from the atmosphere.

All of these require new ecosystems of partners and collaborators, whether suppliers, customers, communities or others. And all require commitments and communications.

None of the Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved without these three ingredients. Or the Paris Agreement on climate change. Or pretty much any other global, sectoral or multisectoral goals or commitments.

It’s probably the last of the Cs — communicate — that will be most challenging for companies. In general, companies do not tell their stories well. That makes sense given the history of sustainable business.Success in Sustainability Combines These 3 Ingredients - business

Time was that being humble and modest about one’s environmental achievements and progress was seen as an asset, a means of minimising reputational risk from being seen as taking only partial measures to solve complex challenges. Better to do your thing, the thinking went, than to promote yourself and gain unwanted attention that could turn your good deeds into a liability. And maybe, if things worked well, activists or the media would “catch us being good.”

It was a dubious strategy then, and it’s an even worse one now. These days, transparency rules. You can’t get by saying, “Trust us. We’re working on it.”

But how to tell stories that are about progress, but not perfection? How do you communicate to customers and others, “We’re doing less bad than we used to”? After all, most of these initiatives — eliminating plastic waste, reducing the use of polluting energy sources and so on — are about reducing problems, not necessarily about creating new sources of value. Doing-less-bad stories are tough to tell.

This was originally published by Greenbiz.com. Click here to read the entire article.

Discover the key to sustainable business practices

The 2019 National Sustainability Conference will highlight discussions on the current challenges, successes and future plans for sustainable practices within business.

Hear from a lineup of experienced keynote speakers from all facets of sustainability, network with like minded professionals and gain insight into the progress and plans taking place for a smart, successful and healthy future.

Find out more.

What’s wrong with big solar in cities? Nothing, if it’s done right

Many of us are familiar with developments of big solar farms in rural and regional areas. These are often welcomed as a positive sign of our transition towards a low-carbon economy. But do large-scale solar installations have a place in our cities?

The City of Fremantle in Western Australia is considering a proposal to use a former landfill site for a large-scale solar farm. The reportedly 4.9 megawatt solar power station on an eight-hectare site would be, it’s said, Australia’s largest urban solar farm. The initiative is part of Fremantle’s ambition to be powered by 100% clean energy within a decade.

The proposal is facing some community opposition, however. Residents are reportedly alarmed by the potential public health consequences of building on a rubbish dump, which risks releasing toxic contaminants such as asbestos into the environment. Other concerns include glare from the solar panels, or excessive noise.

Similar complaints about solar panels in cities are being seen all over the world, with opponents generally of the view “they do not belong in residential areas”. So what are the planning issues associated with large-scale solar installations in cities? And should we be concerned about possible negative impacts?

What is large-scale solar?

According to the Australian Clean Energy Regulator, large-scale solar refers to “a device with a kilowatt (kW) rating of more than 100 kilowatts”. A kilowatt is a measure of power – the rate of energy delivery at a given moment – whereas a kilowatt-hour (kWh) is a measure of the total energy produced (so a 100kW device operating for one hour would produce 100kWh of electricity).

Device here refers to not only the photovoltaic (PV) panels – the actual panels used in solar energy – but also to the infrastructure “behind the electricity meter”. So interconnected panels may still constitute a single device.

By this definition, there may already be large-scale solar installations in Australian cities. In Sydney for example, the recently opened system on top of the Alexandra Canal Transport Depot is by all accounts a large-scale solar system. It combines around 1,600 solar panels with enough battery storage for 500kWh of electricity.

But this is not Sydney’s largest solar installation. That honour is presently held by the Sydney Markets in Flemington, among Australia’s largest rooftop solar installations, which generates around 3 megawatts (that’s 3,000kW). To date, there have been no publicly disclosed complaints received about these facilities.

Large-scale solar (sometimes called “big solar”) can also refer to solar arrays that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto solar PV panels. This is different to concentrated thermal solar, which uses mirrors to focus sunlight onto the top of a tower to heat salt, oil or other materials that can then be used to generate steam to power turbines for electricity generation.

What’s the problem with solar in cities?

Internationally, there is increasing recognition cities could be ideal locations for large-scale solar installations due to the amounts of unused land. This includes land alongside freeways and main roads, flood-prone land, and rooftops on factories, warehouses and residences. And locating big solar in cities can also reduce the energy losses that occur with transmitting electricity over long distances.

Australia’s combined rooftop solar installations already supply the equivalent of enough power for all the homes in Sydney. And even former landfill sites – which have few uses other than parkland and are often too contaminated to sustain other land uses such as residential development – can be a good use of space for solar farms. But such sites would need to be carefully managed so contaminants are not released during construction.Large-scale solar installations can present some challenges for urban planning. For instance, mirrors can cause problems with glare, or even damage if they were misaligned (problems thus far have been in solar thermal plants). Maintenance vehicles may increase traffic in neighbourhoods. Installing solar panels could cause temporary problems with noise and lighting. And views could potentially be disrupted if adjoining residents overlook a large-scale solar installation.

Originally Published by The Conversation, continue reading here.

If Your Business Is Not Sustainable Pretty Soon It Won’t Exist

During the American President’s recent visit to Nigeria, he spoke of “taking down the trade barriers” between the two countries and of becoming the economic partner of choice for nations across the African continent. This is not what African countries need. Trade is no longer the key to economic growth. The world needs to focus on mutually beneficial partnerships, fostering sustainable development across the continent, targeting the continent’s inhabitants as its primary consumers – in Nigeria, this requires much higher levels of private-sector investment and economic participation.

Reports such as one published recently by the Business and Sustainable Development Commission, show that sustainable business is an untapped $12 trillion opportunity. Making sustainability the most lucrative business sector there is. Increasingly, it is becoming part of the mainstream investment agenda, with negative yielding assets in the West slowly being swapped for high-potential growth assets in the South. Both policymakers and institutions are realizing that investment into and equitable collaboration with low-income high-growth countries is key to achieving a thriving global economy and reducing inequality in their home countries.

By 2050, Africa will account for 25% of the global population. Within Africa, Nigeria will remain the most populous country and is on course to have the third highest population in the world, with over 300 million people. Nigeria’s economy is still currently heavily dominated by the public sector, but current government policies and presidential directives highlight the country’s commitment to building its private sector. The steps being taken are similar to those taken by Brazil at the start of this century.

Nigeria is blessed with a population which is highly entrepreneurial, predominantly English speaking, eager to learn and has over 100% mobile phone penetration. The private sector is expanding, adding value and providing local solutions for one of the largest and fastest growing markets in the world. Given the market fundamentals of the country, its private sector could rival that of Brazil’s in 10 years, which is good news for the global economy as Nigeria’s success is vital for global growth and stability.

Nigeria will have to decide how to manage trade but prioritize real local sustainable industrialization, just as Western countries did when they were growing their economies, and serving their local markets. The old-world paradigm, promulgated by developed countries pushing for trade agreements that are still largely one-sided and which make local development much harder, is clearly a bad policy for all countries of the world. Nigeria’s rapid population growth represents a huge opportunity to implement and exemplify the new sustainable model of development that the world so desperately needs.

It is now imperative that investment is made from the ground up, into infrastructure, people, facilities and the nascent private sector. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Nick Butler highlights the untapped business opportunities in energy and associated infrastructure development in Africa. As he points out, there is a huge market of 600 million Africans that need reliable power and other services. The first companies to provide these services will secure top and bottom line growth for decades to come. A recent S&P report indicates that investing in infrastructure will generate 2.5% in economic growth in emerging markets such as Nigeria. Butler further argues that the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development should extend its activity to Sub-Saharan Africa, which is exactly the type of investment it needs to secure adequate returns for itself in the future. The Nigerian government, through the Nigeria Sovereign Wealth Authority, will dedicate 50% of its future contributions to infrastructure, which presents opportunities for EBRD and other global institutions to co-invest.

Local investment is also critical. Thanks to reforms such as the Local Content Act of 2010, the outlawing of monopolies and a bias against politically exposed companies, the playing field for real private-sector companies has been leveled in Nigeria. Private-sector companies that have been investing and struggling for decades are now rapidly gaining traction. The private sector must build on this positive momentum and make long-term investments now. It is only by investing through and with the local private sector that international investors can be sure of getting high and sustainable returns.

Originally Published by Forbes, continue reading here.

Q&A With LUSH Cosmetics Australia and New Zealand

At the Association for Sustainability in Business, it’s our mission to connect and collaborate with businesses and individuals passionate about sustainable business practices.

LUSH Cosmetics is one of the leaders in the health and beauty industry dedicated to minimising waste and focusing on the power of local buying.

We spoke with Elisia Gray, Buyer at LUSH Cosmetics Australia and New Zealand about LUSH’s sustainable business practices, the sLush fund and what makes LUSH a little different.

Q. What are some of LUSH’s green initiatives?

A. Sustainability is at the core of what we do at LUSH. In 2007 we created Charity Pot Hand and Body Lotion to raise money for small grassroots charities. Community contribution is entrenched in our values and part of being an ethical business with a strong sense of social responsibility. 100% of sales (minus the GST) is donated to fund grassroots charities and Not For Profit projects working on animal welfare, human rights and environmental issues.

Our 5 Pot Program encourages customers to recycle by offering a free face mask in exchange for five empty LUSH pots. We send these used black pots to TerraCycle who recycle and repurpose traditionally difficult to recycle plastics.

We’ve also tackled the environmental issues that surround the bottled water industry by banning the use of single-use plastic water bottles in January 2014 and the use of disposable coffee cups from December 2014 across the Australian business.

Q. What impacts are the cosmetics industry having on the environment and what are the long-term effects of these practices?

A. Cosmetic packaging generates an enormous amount of waste, with millions of tonnes ending up in landfills each year. By 2050, it’s estimated that there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish.

LUSH is leading the way in innovative solid products, which eliminate the need for packaging altogether. Over 35 percent of our products are totally unpackaged, or as we affectionately call them, “Naked”. Our naked solid shampoo bars, conditioners, bath bombs and massage bars save millions of plastic bottles from being produced, transported and disposed of every year. At a time of increased plastic pollution and dwindling resources, there’s a chance to offer balance by offering choice to customers.

When we can’t eliminate packaging completely, like in the case of shower gels or gift boxes, we only use recycled and recyclable materials.

Q. What makes LUSH different?

A. At LUSH we see ourselves as cosmetics grocers with our fresh, handmade and inventive products loaded with the freshest ingredients and essential oils. We were founded in 1995 in the United Kingdom by a group of animal and environmental activists who didn’t want to leave their ethics at home when they went to work.

LUSH is different in that we are and will always be a campaigning company. We believe in standing up for animal welfare, environmental protection and supporting human rights, and we believe it is our responsibility to do so.

Q. How does LUSH’s ethical buying work?

A. We put an enormous amount of care into every product we make, and it’s important for us to work with suppliers who do the same. When sourcing ingredients for our products we like to know where they come from, how they’re made and how they impact the communities that produce them. To look into these questions, we have a dedicated Ethical Buying team that works hard researching and meeting with suppliers and producers to ensure that they – and the materials they sell – meet our standards.

Our buyers work to find local sources within our own communities, but when this isn’t possible, they travel worldwide to visit potential suppliers. On these trips, they trace the ingredients journey from planting to harvest to processing to ensure the process is ethical from start to finish. Through these visits, our buyers build close relationships with growers and producers, while helping to maintain sustainable practices and fair conditions for workers.

Q. Tell us a bit more about the ‘Slush Fund’

A. The Sustainable LUSH Fund (SLush) was established in November 2010 with the idea of moving our ethical buying practices beyond simply buying fairly traded ingredients, to develop supportive partnerships with the communities that produce them. The SLush Fund has enabled LUSH to go beyond a sustainable organic alternative and conventional agriculture to permaculture projects.

The mechanics of the SLush Fund are straightforward: alongside the amount LUSH spends on raw materials and packaging each year, up to £1m is donated to the fund.​ For the year ended 30th June 2017 SLush raised a total of £1,465,000 predominately to permaculture farms and to some of our suppliers to enable them to become more sustainable.

Mehmet Cetinkaya, 53 years old, airs the rose petals as they are left to dry on the factory floor. He has worked at the Sebat factory for 16 years. His son also works at the factory.

Q. What can other businesses learn from LUSH’s sustainable initiatives?

A. You don’t always need enormous gestures when you’re getting started. Incremental changes that affect daily behaviour are the best way to build it up – like when we gave staff members reusable water bottles or KeepCups. Seeing the momentum that builds can give a business more confidence to take that next step in reducing their impacts. If it is built slowly and authentically, businesses might feel emboldened to take more impactful steps towards social change and standing up for what they value.

Q. LUSH’s top three tips for sustainable buying?

1. Conduct regular farm and factory visits

By conducting regular farm and factory visits we are able to establish a relationship with suppliers built trust and collaboration. We encourage suppliers to tell us about their product and brand history along with any challenges they face. We reassure suppliers that we are willing to work with them and encourage open dialogue.

This discourse often results in LUSH becoming passionate about the issues our suppliers are passionate about too!

2. Think global and act local

Where we can, we buy local and aim to work with growers and producers. LUSH is unique in that we manufacture our own cosmetics here in Villawood, Sydney. Our staff are a diverse group, both culturally and socially, and we have a deep connection to the local community,
so it makes sense to apply the same values to the way we do business. We’ll often have suppliers stop by our office to drop off samples or talk about new developments in their business.

3. Apply permaculture principles to your business practices

At LUSH we work with suppliers who have the shared aim of fair pay, decent working conditions and protection of the animals, people and the environment.

We apply permaculture principles to our business practices which are;

  • Fair share
  • Care for people
  • Care for earth

It is a long term aim at LUSH to move beyond sustainability and become an agent of ecological change and regeneration.

How Sustainable Is IKEA, Really?

IKEA is a Swedish-founded, Dutch-based global retail behemoth. Offering low-cost, visually appealing furniture in well-designed highly-coordinated warehouse spaces, it’s little wonder IKEA is the world’s largest furniture retailer and has been for the last decade.

In recent years, the company has put sustainability front and centre, releasing its ‘People & Planet Positive‘ roadmap, a document outlining its 2020 sustainability strategy. Some of the objectives outlined in the report include:

  • sourcing 100% of its wood, paper and cardboard from more sustainable sources, defined as recycled or FSC® certified wood
  • using cotton sourced from “more sustainable” sources, such as “Better Cotton“
  • that 90% of products will be more sustainable with substantiated environmental improvements
  • that as a global business it produces as much renewable energy as it consumes.

With over 400 stores worldwide, roughly 170,000 employees, 915 million customers each year and sales revenue exceeding EUR 34.2 billion (in FY2016 this equated to USD $37.6 billion), we wonder: Good intentions aside, can IKEA ever be sustainable?

First, some background.

IKEA was founded in 1943 by Swedish entrepreneur Ingvar Kamprad who, at 17-years-old and after receiving money from his father for academic performance, launches the retail business. According to the historical timeline on the IKEA website, the business initially sold consumer products such as pens, wallets and jewellery. Five years later, Kamprad makes the historic decision to include furniture in the range and several years later, published the now-iconic IKEA catalogue. He would later open a showroom in Älmhult, Sweden allowing customers to experience the well-designed low-cost furnishings for themselves. Not long after, the business begins to design and make their own furniture, due in large to risks of supplier boycotts. After an employee removes legs off of a piece of furniture to fit into a car, the concept of the flat pack and self-assembled furniture was born. From here, the rest, as they say, is history.

“The name IKEA is formed from the founder’s initials (I.K.) plus the first letters of Elmtaryd (E) and Agunnaryd (A), the farm and village where [Ingvar Kamprad] grew up. IKEA originally sells pens, wallets, picture frames, table runners, watches, jewellery and nylon stockings – meeting needs with products at reduced prices… ” it states on IKEA’s website. 

Now a couple of years ago, I received an email from a PR agency working with IKEA Australia on an influencer program, known as IKEA Kollectively. It’s a nice feeling whenever a well-known company reaches out, but my mind is always on the job even when my ego is being stroked. My reply to Sophie the PR consultant was honest and direct (surprise, surprise):

Hi Sophie,

I had a look at the info you sent and of course had to do my own research.

Here’s where I am at:

On the one hand I like that IKEA’s items are affordable and that individual items can be replaced if broken etc. I like that there is a minimalistic nature of the pieces and that many really are well-designed and timeless.

On the other hand, my own experience with the furniture… means I was unhappy with the quality. I tend to be the type that focus on individual items and the uniqueness of a piece. This is not something IKEA is known for. It is, shall we say, mass produced. Something that does not gel with my idea of “slow” living.

So having said this, I am still happy to be a part of the influencer partnership as I know that I have the freedom to select pieces that I like. Now just so you know I am also extremely honest in my appraisals of businesses. It is a part of EWP mission: to be a part of conversations that are substantial and not just gloss over like a badly written advertorial.

So, while I might applaud some aspects of a brand/business/product/service, as a person who highly values critical thinking, I am also unafraid to condemn and criticise.

If this is okay by IKEA, then we can move forward ?

Of course, Sophie was really understanding of my position and thought that it would be better if we worked together on an ad-hoc basis where they “could tap into sustainable stories and issues that [I’m] passionate about”.

For reasons I can’t put my finger on now, we never did end up working together.

IKEA: The McDonalds of the furniture world?

At the National Sustainability in Business Conference, I had the good fortune to catch IKEA Australia’s Sustainability Manager Dr Kate Ringvall’s presentation. Her passion and enthusiasm for her employer was evident: “Having spent many years in government, I finally found a place where my value set is met and IKEA is meeting those every day,” she shares with the audience made up of over a hundred of Australia’s sustainability thought leaders. She explains that sustainability is at the centre of IKEA’s business strategy and that it informs how the business designs and makes their products:

“At IKEA we make products with sustainability at their heart and we sell at a price that puts them well within the reach of the many people, and that’s really one of our goals. We call this ‘democratic design’, it’s that clever combination of form, function, quality and sustainability all at a low price, and it helps all of us, including our co-workers, live a more sustainable life at home.”

After listening to her brilliant talk and reading IKEA’s People & Planet Positive strategy, I come to the conclusion that as far as big businesses go, their sustainability mission seems genuine enough. But one thought still niggled at me:

Can a company that relies on a low-cost, high-volume business model that encourages mass-consumption ever be sustainable?

Critics are sceptical of IKEA’s sustainability commitment, pointing out that IKEA produces fast furniture that is inferior quality and that the low prices encourage impulse purchasing and disposability. Ellen Rupell Shell, author of the book,“Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture” writes: “IKEA designs to price, challenging its talented European team to create ever-cheaper objects, and its suppliers—most of them in low-wage countries in Asia and eastern Europe—to squeeze out the lowest possible price.”

It’s easy to see IKEA as the McDonalds of the furniture world. Even if thedemocratic design process is slow (five years of designing, trialling and testing according to Dr Kate Ringvall), its production system is scarily efficient. The assumption that people value their IKEA furniture less because it’s inexpensive may be true, but the idea of someone actually disposing of furniture the way they dump fast fashion seems somewhat far-fetched. The furniture may be mass-produced and cheap, but it’s definitely not $10 t-shirt cheap. It’s more likely that the furniture is fixed if broken, donated or sold on, not dumped in the trash. Anecdotally, an IKEA bookshelf that was painstakingly self-assembled (by my ex, not me), purchased 12 years ago, now sits in my sister’s home office, still in great condition and still in vogue. Fast furniture describes the manufacture, not necessarily consumer behaviour.

IKEA’s home decor products are, of course, another story. It’s easy to imagine these items – picture frames, bath mats, vases – being tossed out in the weekly garbage after breaking. It’s easier to replace than fix many of these cheap goods.

After listening to her brilliant talk and reading IKEA’s People & Planet Positive strategy, I come to the conclusion that as far as big businesses go, their sustainability mission seems genuine enough. But one thought still niggled at me:

Can a company that relies on a low-cost, high-volume business model that encourages mass-consumption ever be sustainable?

Critics are sceptical of IKEA’s sustainability commitment, pointing out that IKEA produces fast furniture that is inferior quality and that the low prices encourage impulse purchasing and disposability. Ellen Rupell Shell, author of the book,“Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture” writes: “IKEA designs to price, challenging its talented European team to create ever-cheaper objects, and its suppliers—most of them in low-wage countries in Asia and eastern Europe—to squeeze out the lowest possible price.”

It’s easy to see IKEA as the McDonalds of the furniture world. Even if thedemocratic design process is slow (five years of designing, trialling and testing according to Dr Kate Ringvall), its production system is scarily efficient. The assumption that people value their IKEA furniture less because it’s inexpensive may be true, but the idea of someone actually disposing of furniture the way they dump fast fashion seems somewhat far-fetched. The furniture may be mass-produced and cheap, but it’s definitely not $10 t-shirt cheap. It’s more likely that the furniture is fixed if broken, donated or sold on, not dumped in the trash. Anecdotally, an IKEA bookshelf that was painstakingly self-assembled (by my ex, not me), purchased 12 years ago, now sits in my sister’s home office, still in great condition and still in vogue. Fast furniture describes the manufacture, not necessarily consumer behaviour.

IKEA’s home decor products are, of course, another story. It’s easy to imagine these items – picture frames, bath mats, vases – being tossed out in the weekly garbage after breaking. It’s easier to replace than fix many of these cheap goods.

This excerpt was republished with permission from Eco Warrior Princess. Read the original entire article here.

Jennifer Nini (AKA Eco Warrior Princess) attended the 2018 National Sustainability in Business Conference on the 8-9th March in Brisbane where Dr Kate Ringvall, Sustainability Manager at IKEA Australia was a Keynote Speaker.

Announcements regarding the 2019 National Sustainability Conference will be released shortly. 

Click here to be kept in the loop.