Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., more commonly known as Al Gore, was the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under former President William “Bill” Clinton. While many know Al Gore for the 24 years he spent as an elected official, today he is more known for his work as an environmental activist. Al Gore has founded a number of non-governmental organizations based around the environment, and created the 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth about the affects of global warming. For all his efforts, Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as an activist regarding climate change.

1 ) Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, Byers Climate Solutions Group. Al Gore heads the climate solutions group at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, Byers (KPCB), a premier venture capital firm located in Silicon Valley, California. The Wall Street Journal has listed it as the “largest and most established” firm in the globe. KPCB has been championing investment into the clean technology sector since 1999 and has actively invested in a number of ventures that have the potential to solve a variety of urgent challenges associated with the global climate crisis. The focus includes funding technologies that are related to renewable energy, clean water, sustainable agriculture, and next-generation transportation.

2 ) Al Gore Endorses a Green Bank Bill. In 2009, when testifying right before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Al Gore endorsed a new Green Bank Bill. First introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), this bill would create a financial institution that is government-owned and would provide necessary support to qualified energy efficiency and clean energy projects.

3 ) Call to have all Energy in the United States made Renewable in Ten Years. In 2008, Al Gore decided to make the challenge to the United States to get the country to make a switch to completely renewable sources of energy in ten years time. He made the mention that the solution to the current climate crisis will also help in renewing the economy through the creation of more jobs, and it will provide an escape route for the United States when it comes to continually rising energy prices.

4 ) Global Marshall Plan. Al Gore created the Global Marshall Plan in his book “Earth in the Balance,” and provides specific ideas regarding how to save the current global environment. In his book, Gore states, “The model of the Marshall Plan can be of great help. For example, a Global Marshall Plan must focus on strategic goals and emphasize actions and programs that are likely to remove the bottlenecks presently inhibiting the healthy functioning of the global economy. The new global economy must be an inclusive system that does not leave entire regions behind. The new plan will require the wealthy nations to allocate money for transferring environmentally helpful technologies to the Third World and to help impoverished nations achieve a stable population and a new pattern of sustainable economic progress. To work, however, any such effort will also require wealthy nations to make a transition themselves that will be in some ways more wrenching than that of the Third World.” There are five strategic goals, stabilizing the global population, the quick development of technologies that are environmentally appropriate, a change in economic rules of the road in respect to the environment, new international agreements regarding the environment, and a plan to educate the world about the environment.

5 ) Supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Al Gore has been a huge supported of the Kyoto Protocol. This protocol was formed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is geared toward fighting the increase in global warming. This international environmental treaty has the goal of stabilizing the carbon dioxide emissions concentrations throughout the atmosphere to a level that would prevent the possibility of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the current climate system.

6 ) An Inconvenient Truth. An Inconvenient Truth is a book written by Al Gore in 2006. It is based on Gore’s lecture tour regarding the topic of global warming and further elaborates on a number of points regarding climate change. It was turned into a documentary film also in 2006 that followed Gore’s initiatives to educate the general public about climate change. The movie won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. Both the book and the movie have been widely credited for increasing international public awareness in regards to the climate change and helped to reenergize the global environmental movement.

7 ) The Al Gore Sustainable Technology Venture Competition. The Al Gore Sustainable Technology Venture Competition is the very first and most prestigious clean technology and sustainably business plan competition in Asia. It was established in 2007 and looks to increase the generation of India’s engineering, technology, science, and management students to start thinking more sustainability and creating sustainable technology solutions that will provide a positive impact on the environment.

8 ) The Climate Reality Project. The Climate Reality Project was founded and chaired by Al Gore and currently has over five million members around the world. It is a nonprofit organization that remains dedicated to providing education to the global community in regards to the importance of the implementation of a comprehensive solution to the current climate crisis. The project emphasizes the requirement to bring together a very diverse range of organizations and individuals to strengthen the global network of people looking to take action when it comes to various climate issues.

9 ) Live Earth. Live Earth was established by Kevin Wall along with Al Gore and “built upon the belief that entertainment has the power to transcend social and cultural barriers to move the world community to action…Live Earth seeks to leverage the power of entertainment through integrated events, media, and the live experience to ignite a global movement aimed at solving the most critical environmental issues.” For example, on 07/07/07, Live Earth produced “Live Earth: the Concerts for a Climate in Crisis,” which was hosted on seven continents and broadcasted in 132 countries.

10 ) Generation Investment Management LLP. Generation Investment Management LLP is a private, independent owner-managed partnership that has offices in New York, New York, London, England, and Sydney Australia and focuses on environmental and social responsibility. It was co-founded in 2004 by Al Gore and David Blood. The mission of Generation Investment Management LLP is to “Deliver superior investment performance by taking a long term investment view and integrating sustainability research within a rigorous fundamental equity analysis framework; create long term client partnerships by delivering unique investment insights and exceptional client service; [and] attract, retain, and develop the best professionals within a passionate investment culture.”

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com.

Related posts:

• Videos: Clean Tech to Address Triple Threats, Says Al Gore
• Insight into Dell’s Sustainability Initiatives
• Should Al Gore Profit From Global Warming? Should Any of Us?
• Where Sustainability Executives Fall in Today’s Organizational Structure
• Are Employees Investing in Business Sustainability?

Amid all the negative publicity that Solyndra’s failure has brought to the Administration’s cleantech efforts, one cleantech program has received broad bipartisan support: DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-e). In 2012, ARPA-e will receive $275 million, a 53% increase from the prior year with both the House and the Senate supporting significant funding for the agency’s third year of operations.

ARPA-e is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which for over 50 years has funded early-stage research projects that show the potential to develop technologies that could yield disruptive advances for the military. DARPA’s projects have resulted in major leaps including, but definitely not limited to, the Internet, stealth technology and the Global Positioning System. Both agencies operate by soliciting proposals from companies, universities, and labs within broad thematic areas and select the most promising proposals for grant awards.

Readers of my blog know that I am not a big fan of some of the Administration’s cleantech efforts. ARPA-e is at least one exception. Authorized in the last year of the Bush Administration and initially funded through the Obama Administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the ARPA-e program may be one government program that can help seed the disruptive advances needed in our energy economy.

Why, given the negative publicity around government funding for cleantech projects, has ARPA-e been able to win bipartisan support?

Focus on early stage R&D
Government-funded R&D has long been an area of bipartisan support. Most members of Congress believe (as do I) that the government has a role in funding early-stage research and innovation in areas of public interest where the private sector is unable to economically justify conducting such R&D given the high degree of risk. Unlike the DOE loan program that funded Solyndra’s factories, the purpose of the ARPA-e grants are to fund high-risk, high-reward R&D projects that industry alone cannot support, but whose success could dramatically benefit the nation.

Grants (of reasonable size) not investments (of enormous size)
The bulk of the Administration’s cleantech investments were funded through the ARRA including the initial funding for ARPA-e. Since ARRA’s purpose was to stimulate the economy, government agencies, including DOE needed to get funds out the door as quickly as possible (unfortunately this failed). That led to many extremely large awards of both grants and loan guarantees. Just a few high profile examples — $527 million to Solyndra (bankrupt), $465 million to Tesla, $249 million to A123, $76 million to Range Fuels (bankrupt), $43 million to Beacon Power (bankrupt) and $25 million to Amyris. Some of these awards were grants; others were loans where the government hoped to get a return on its investment.

Unlike many other programs handing money out for cleantech related efforts, ARPA-e’s awards have all been grants made with the clear understanding that they are for high-risk R&D that often will not work out. In no case is there an expectation of a financial return to the government. Anytime a government program expects to make a return on investment it is, in my opinion, likely to fail both because the government is inherently flawed at making good business decisions and because politics usually won’t allow for even a single failed investment.

ARPA-e grants to date have averaged $2.9 million and have gone to 180 different projects. As a result, ARPA-e largely avoids the minefield of government trying to play businessman as well as the negative PR fall-out from large project failures. In addition, while politics can play a role in any grant process, the smaller the awards the less potential for political influence to outweigh project merit.

Energy Independence & Global Warming
ARPA-e’s guiding legislative mandate is to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of technologies that reduce energy imports, reduce energy-related emissions including greenhouse gases, and improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors. By combining the goal of energy independence with reduced greenhouse gas emissions the program is able to appeal to a much broader array of elected officials. If the program only focused on reducing greenhouse gases, I strongly suspect there would be much less support from Republicans. By avoiding the polarizing nature of focusing only on global warming or only on energy independence, ARPA-e is able to appeal to a broad audience.

One of the best ways to help solve our energy challenges is through disruptive energy technologies. If ARPA-e can deliver for energy technology even close to how well DARPA has delivered for defense technologies it will ultimately have a large impact on the economy, energy security and the environment. To achieve this, ARPA-e must remain nimble and avoid being sucked into the massive DOE bureaucracy. If it is able to do so, I suspect it will continue to have bipartisan support and will be a long-term shining star in the Administration’s cleantech efforts.

(Note: ARPA-e will hold their annual Innovation Summit February 27-29)

David Gold heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture Partners. He is also the author of the GreenGoldBlog.

Related posts:

• Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Renewable Electricity Standard
• Help Consumers Save Money by Saving Energy
• Obama Cleantech Stimulus: Bad Policy, Bad Politics and Bad for Cleantech
• Bipartisan Bill Wants an End to Corn Ethanol Subsidies
• Energy Star’s Video Challenge

The value of renewable energy deals worldwide increased 40 percent in 2011, as solar, wind, and energy efficiency investments surpassed hydropower for the first time, a new report says.

According to a report by PriceWaterHouse Coopers, deals for renewable energy reached $53.5 billion last year, compared with $38.2 billion in 2010, a rate of growth that reflects a maturing market. While hydropower projects have historically dominated deal flow in the renewable energy sector, wind, solar, biomass and energy efficiency outnumbered hydro seven to one in 2011, the report said.

“The trend is all the more noteworthy given the uncertainy in the market and in government policies on renewables,” Paul Nillesen. PwC’s renewables partner, told Reuters. “We believe that deal flow will continue to be significant in the medium term.” In the U.S., energy developers installed 6,810 megawatts of new wind capacity in 2011 — 31 percent more than in 2010 — as the industry sough to capitalize on an expiring federal tax grant, according to a separate report.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Ascent Solar Strikes Profit-Rich International Deals
• European Biofuel Targets Spurring Grabs of African Farmland
• Explaining PPA Financing
• Confidence Picks Up in Clean Tech Funding: Report
• China Surges Ahead in Clean Energy Investment, Study Says

Just as new patent filings can indicate the direction technology is moving, trademark application data can reveal trends in branding.

This is the idea behind the Dechert law firm’s Annual Report on Trends in Trademarks (created and produced by Glenn Gunderson) in which the firm draws from the most recent year’s trademark data to highlight some new branding and marketing trends.

In 2008 the Dechert report (trends_in_trademarks_2008) focused on the explosion in green branding, demonstrated by the spike in applied-for trademarks and service marks containing eco-friendly terms such as “green,” “eco-,” and “enviro.”

Four years on, some of those terms, most notably “green,” have become ubiquitous in branding and marketing environmentally friendly products, services, and business practices.

As a result, the term “green” has become descriptive of environmentally friendly attributes and lost the inherent distinctiveness required to obtain a U.S. trademark registration.

This is because a mark that is “merely descriptive” of the goods or services it is being used to market or sell is not registrable without an additional showing that consumers have come to associate the mark with the source of the goods or services.

I have discussed several instances of this erosion of “green” in trademark applications in previous posts, e.g., here.

Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that another color has emerged from the green marketers’ toolbox to signal environmentally friendly attributes.

In a previous post (Is Blue the New Green?: Bollore Wins Allowance of BLUECAR Eco-Mark), I discussed Bollore Group’s successful bid to register the mark BLUECAR for, inter alia, electric vehicles and electric motors.

The BLUECAR trademark application was rejected by the trademark examiner on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive because the goods could encompass blue colored vehicles.

On appeal to the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Bollore successfully overcame the rejection by arguing that its use of the mark in connection with environmentally friendly vehicles creates a double entendre because the word “BLUE” evokes an image of cleaner, bluer skies.

I ended that post by asking whether green might be losing its monopoly as the color of environmentally friendly products and services and stating that “perhaps blue is the new green.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, I read a piece that appeared in the Economist’s The World in 2012 issue entitled The Greening of Blue. The article noted several examples of “blue becoming the new green.”

Those include Volkswagen’s “BlueMotion” badge for efficient cars, Mercedes-Benz’s “Blueefficiency” emblem, New Holland’s “ecoBlue” low-emissions tractors, Samsung’s “Blue Earth” solar-powered phone, and, of course, Bollore’s Bluecar.

The article quotes Jack Bredenfoerder, a color expert at the brand consultancy Color Strategy, who said “green is so obvious” and blue is more serious, a global color associated with the sea and cooperation (think the UN).

So now seems to be the moment for blue in green (Miles reference intended). Green marketers: you’d better register your blue marks before the new color goes the way of green and becomes merely descriptive and unregistrable.

But stay tuned and stay on your toes because it won’t end here. A veritable rainbow of green branding colors awaits; according to Bredenfoerder a new clean and efficient color will soon start to compete with blue, which raises the question: will white be the new blue?

Eric Lane is a patent attorney at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at elane@luce.com.

Related posts:

• Branding British Columbia Cleantech for Growth
• Fastest Growing Green Collar Jobs & How to Market Yourself to Get One
• Green infrastructure: Sewage, sewage, go away
• Green Cure For The Blues
• Where Has All the Oil Gone?

A new study says that compensating the world’s poorest communities for helping conserve the planet’s most vital habitats would help solve two major challenges: biodiversity loss and poverty.

In fact, if global leaders were to put an economic value on the preservation of the world’s biodiversity hotspots — including such benefits as providing food and water and absorbing carbon emissions — it could be worth more than $500 billion annually for 330 million of the world’s poorest people.

Since the people who live near these resources typically don’t have the means to protect them, the urgency for such economic mechanisms becomes increasingly critical, according to the study, published in the journal BioScience. “Developed and developing economies cannot continue to ask the world’s poor to shoulder the burden of protecting these globally important ecosystem services for the world’s benefit,” said Will Turner, vice president of Conservation International and lead author of the study.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Rockies Wilderness Area Sought as Buffer to Climate Change
• Clean Energy Market Emerges for India’s Rural Poor
• Over-Consumption Causes More Emissions Than Population Growth?
• Clean Diesel Program Is Clear Success, Says US EPA
• What Will New York City Look Like As Seas Rise?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is outdated and counterproductive to successful enterprise and the global sustainability imperative.

CSR encourages us to incorporate environmental and social considerations into a business-as-usual scenario. This is the triple bottom line approach and is often depicted with three overlapping circles representing economy, society, and environment.

This is a flawed paradigm.

In fact, economy, society, and environment are not three equal parts, but function like nested eggs. The economy occurs within human society, which in turn exists within the natural environment. The natural capital provided by the Earth sustains everything that exists within it. Accordingly, almost every global mega-trend tells us that without a radical transformation of the way we conduct business, a wide variety of risks and pressures will continue to harm profitability across the board.

Speaking metaphorically, the car we are driving is heading toward a cliff. By adopting CSR in its current form, we are softly applying the brakes and only buying ourselves a little more time. In this scenario, going over the cliff is inevitable and simply a matter of time.

Instead, we should be focused on turning the car around.

Most companies continue to ask themselves: “Based on our business plan, what should our CSR strategy be?” But to succeed in the future, businesses must instead ask: “In light of the global sustainability imperative, what should our business plan be?” Massive opportunities await the organizations that come to grips with the root causes of unsustainability and design them out of their businesses.

Companies like Nike, Interface, and The Co-operators are leading the way with sustainability as a mobilizing corporate strategy, increasing their profits, while generating substantial goodwill, and laying the foundation to be relevant in a sustainable future. The leaders in corporate sustainability will thrive as the operating environment inevitably becomes more difficult, leaving the laggards to perish in their wake.

We need to collectively acknowledge that we aren’t doing nearly enough to succeed in the rapidly changing economy of the 21st century, nor enough to create a society that thrives without drawing down our life-giving natural capital.

Incremental improvements are not enough. We are in need of transformational change. Now is the time for Canadian businesses to exit the highway of unsustainability and chart a new course.

Article by Chad Park, Executive Director of The Natural Step Canada, a non-profit sustainability organization that delivers leading consulting and education services. He was recently honoured as one of Canada’s Clean16—the 16 individuals in Canada who have done the most to advance the cause of sustainability and clean capitalism. For more on The Natural Step Canada, please visit www.thenaturalstep.org/canada.

Article appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• India May Make CSR Spending Mandatory
• Insight into Dell’s Sustainability Initiatives
• Subway Supplier Goes Solar
• New Study Shows Corporate Response to Climate Change
• How Far the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement Has Come

Alternative energy will be a major talking point in 2012, thanks to the UN’s decision to declare it as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All. The decision was made back in December 2010 during a UN General Assembly. The initiative recognizes that access to “modern affordable energy services in developing countries is essential for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development.”

In 2012 the Secretary-General in consultation with the inter-agency group UN-Energy will be working to increase awareness of the importance of addressing energy issues, including modern energy services for all, access to affordable energy, energy efficiency and the sustainability of energy sources and use at local, national, regional and international levels.

The hope is to reach three major objectives by 2030:

• Ensuring universal access to modern energy services;
• Doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency;
• Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

The launch of the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All will take place at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, UAE, between January 16th and 18th. This event will be followed by several other ones throughout the year, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in June.

Have a happy, sustainable 2012 and may alternative energy get stronger in the coming year!

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• More Alternative Energy, Says UN Chief at Energy Summit
• Germany’s Solar Industry Had a Record Year in 2011
• What Outsourcing Trends Might Mean to Sustainable Supply Chain Management
• United Nations Prioritizes Renewable Energy
• Norway Launches Energy + To Promote Alternative Energy

At Addison, we work with many companies that are just beginning to address sustainability as a core business issue. The question that often comes up is, “Will producing a sustainability or corporate social responsibility (CSR) report increase our stock price or drive revenues?”

The answer: Not necessarily. The notion that addressing environmental and social challenges will give a boost to sales or stock prices may be putting the cart a bit before the horse.

Many companies that are focusing on sustainability and CSR challenges for the first time are looking for the silver bullet that will answer all their problems. They mistakenly believe that putting solar panels on the roof of their headquarters, donating an extra million dollars to charity, producing a sustainability report, and/or offering reusable bags to shoppers will automatically lead to the public perceiving them as a responsible company, with accompanying increases in sales and stock value as a result.

This is simply not the case. Companies must take the initiative in addressing sustainability issues directly within their operations, supply chain, and product offerings, in order to generate the credible data that make up the heart of a CSR report. A CSR program and corresponding report without these metrics usually isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

That said, a 2008 study by IBM found that 68% of business leaders are focusing on CSR activities to create new revenue streams, and the same study showed that 54% believe their company’s CSR activities are already giving them an advantage over top competitors. Companies that are pursuing sustainability initiatives, capturing material performance indicators and communicating these publicly in the form of a report, realize the benefits in terms of reputational protection, recruiting and retention, and a higher number of business-to-business contracts rather than the direct boost to the metrics those in the C-suite love to see. While these efforts may not translate directly to sales, they certainly have financial implications.

Reputation

A strong environmental reputation can protect companies against negative media coverage, at least for a short while. As we all know, reputations can turn on a dime. A weak or damaged reputation can lead to a devaluation of stock, a shorting of the stock by investors, or both.

As Nike found out a few years ago, a problem within a company’s supply chain can have disastrous effects on reputation and revenue. The very public lawsuit was focused on the working conditions in Nike’s suppliers’ factories around the globe, which were notorious for being sweatshops.

Following the barrage of negative media stories, the company worked with the investor group Ceres to produce an award-winning and transparent report that clearly laid out where its factories were located, and the working conditions at each. This was the first-ever disclosure of a company’s contract factory base in the industry, and because of the company’s engagement with stakeholders, the report set the standard for best practice disclosure in the apparel industry. While problems still remain, organizations and individuals using Nike’s products can be assured that the company remains vigilant about the transparency of this critical link in its production.

Bottom line: Investors, NGOs, potential employees and regulators are all looking to companies to be responsible actors in their efforts to increase shareholder value. But these efforts are meaningless if companies aren’t keeping tabs on their environmental footprint, strengthening their social programs around the globe, and improving their governance systems, which drive these activities from the top down.

Producing a sustainability report is the first line of defense, as it sends a message to interested parties that the company is serious about improving the lives of those in the communities in which it operates. A good reputation is difficult to create, yet very easy to destroy. According to the National Policy Association, CEOs often cite reputation as their “most valuable intangible asset.” Protecting and enhancing it should be their highest priority.

Recruitment, Retention and Employee Satisfaction

Running a responsible business enables companies to attract the best and the brightest candidates and reduce turnover rates, which in turn lowers training costs, minimizes “brain drain,” and leads to increased customer satisfaction. All of the above contribute to the bottom line, if not directly to sales.

A study of MBA graduates by Stanford University found that students ranked “employer’s reputation for ethical conduct and caring policies toward employees” a close third behind “intellectual challenge” and “money and location” when assessing potential employers. Another report by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) discovered that companies offering community service programs develop employees with a “variety of competencies, including teamwork, planning and implementation, communication, project management, listening skills and customer focus.”

The reality is that employees want to work for companies that are making a positive difference in society, particularly Millennials (a.k.a., Generation Y and Echo Boomers). About 69% of those surveyed by Cone for their Cause Evolution Study said that a company’s commitment to social and environmental issues influences a potential employee’s decision to work at a company; that figure rises to 87% for those aged 18 to 24. Essentially, younger employees want to be able to feel good about their answer when asked, “So what do you do for a living?” As many workers have found, saying that they work at Arthur Anderson, RJ Reynolds, or ExxonMobil produces a far more negative response than the likes of Dell, Timberland or GE.

One of the factors linking the latter group of companies is that they all produce best-in-class sustainability/CSR reports, enable their employees to learn about activities in other divisions of the business, and share these successes with family, friends, and colleagues at other companies. Given the siloed nature of modern workplaces, the opportunity to share a CSR report with colleagues provides employees with an opportunity to feel pride in where they work, and gain a greater understanding of the company’s overall impact on the world.

Bottom line: It feels good to work for a company that is actively trying to make the world a better place. These employees are less likely to leave for greener pastures, are more productive in their jobs, and are more likely to recommend their friends and former colleagues for positions within their firms. In turn, these attributes decrease turnover, increase productivity, and reduce hiring costs. As any HR executive will tell you, these are metrics they strive to improve every day.

Business-to-Business Contracts

Lastly, many firms are beginning to monitor their supply chains for any risks, real or perceived. Many are even asking their suppliers to produce sustainability reports and provide data on key performance indicators, while others are including these requirements in their RFPs. This practice goes beyond the standard facility audit or requirement that suppliers sign their company’s code of conduct.

Companies these days are looking to gain a better sense of whether their suppliers see sustainability and corporate social responsibility as core business practices, or are simply paying lip service to these efforts. Producing sustainability reports (though the quality of these varies quite a bit) is a top-to-bottom effort that sets a benchmark for environmental and social performance going forward. As the saying goes, what’s measured is managed, and an increasing number of companies are finally beginning to manage their supply chains more effectively.

Adidas, for example, just announced in its latest sustainability report that it will now require each of its top 10 suppliers to produce a sustainability report starting next year. Another example of B2B pressure is at Levi Strauss. The company’s “Levi’s Certification” of their supply chain (focused on factories that have safe, healthy and compliant environments) has led these suppliers to use this certification to win contracts with other big-name clients.

The CEO of one prominent consumer apparel company told PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 10Minutes on Trust and Transparency, “As the Walmarts and Targets of the world become more powerful, they are demanding that they get what they ask for. They won’t accept our word, but need third-party verification.”

Bottom line: Though no sustainability report or auditing system is going to catch all the problems with a company’s suppliers, a high level of scrutiny and the sharing of results with potential business partners, can lead to increased business and satisfied stakeholders. These are quickly becoming a must-have for companies to secure new business, and requesting them should be mandatory for companies seeking to reduce risks in their supply chains.

Going Forward

In spite of the reasons above, producing a sustainability or CSR report won’t automatically drive a company to the top of a green rankings list. But to the question of whether it will help, the answer is, as with nearly all business decisions, “it depends.”

Addressing sustainability is a complex endeavor, and the path to doing so is very different for each sector, sometimes even for companies within the same industry.

Take, for example, the efforts of two companies in the IT sector that develop products for clients, and how they might differ in their approach to minimizing their environmental footprints.

One produces software, the other hardware. The software company, whose product is primarily downloaded online or managed from their data center, is going to be chiefly focused on their energy efficiency and their facilities’ environmental footprint. On the other hand, the hardware company which produces consumer products should be looking at its shipping and waste streams as the primary means of reducing impact.

This is why producing a sustainability report is critical for companies to begin to tell their sustainability story. These reports should include specific challenges to overcome, opportunities to be captured, and ways the company is including stakeholders in the reporting process. The resulting reports provide readers with a more complete story of how companies are positioning themselves for the years ahead. No two companies are alike, and each of their challenges and success stories will be different. Though companies can release a report without such stories, it simply won’t be compelling.

As a senior portfolio manager at Ernst & Young mentioned in the SAM 2009 Yearbook (which provides the analytics behind the Dow Jones Sustainability Index), “Financial performance tells me what a company has already done. Non-financial performance tells me what it is likely to do.” Sustainability reports give investors, employees and other stakeholders a much more complete picture of a company’s policies and practices, as well as a clearer sense of its environmental and social footprint. As we’ve seen time and time again, it’s not simply a quarterly snapshot of a corporation’s bottom line that predicts future success. Does anyone remember Enron Wind?

The benefits of producing such a report are manifold, for readers and reporters alike. Sustainability/CSR reports put down on paper, often for the first time, the measurable benchmarks against which the company will report going forward. These might include greenhouse gas reduction goals, the ratio of pay between men and women, human rights policies for transnational companies, or how a company is reducing the amount of natural resources used in their products and operations (water, paper, fossil fuels, etc.).

While the benefits of sustainability and CSR reporting may not immediately show up on a company’s balance sheet, they are still critical to the ongoing success of any firm. From maintaining a positive reputation with customers and other stakeholders, to attracting and retaining the best and brightest employees, to securing new business contracts, producing a sustainability/CSR report is an effective way of positively affecting each of these areas. The 79% of Fortune 250 companies already doing so can attest to this, and the rest will be doing so very soon.

Article by Tim Woodall, Strategist, Sustainability Communications at Addison, appearing courtesy 3BL Media.

Related posts:

• Where Sustainability Executives Fall in Today’s Organizational Structure
• The Changing Face of Corporate Responsibility
• Race to the Bottom: Sustainability Lessons from Financial Regulation
• Increase in Capital Spending: What does it Mean to Business Sustainability?
• Sustainability Reporting Evolves to Include More Water Risk, Supply Chain Disclosures

If someone told me they could improve the efficiency of my computer so that it operates quicker, at no extra cost to me, I can’t imagine I’d turn them away. Yet, the energy efficiency industry offers a similar option for homes and businesses and at least so far, consumers aren’t flocking to the programs.

On-bill financing gives customers the ability to finance energy efficiency improvements made to their homes and businesses at no upfront cost. Customers pay for the insulation, lighting, new heating system or other efficiency measure over extended terms on their monthly utility bills. Typically, the savings from the efficiency improvement offset the cost, so the customer sees no increase in the monthly utility bill. You get a building that uses less energy and yet experience no financial pain in doing so.

There is no catch here. It sounds like a good deal for the consumer and early reports indicate it is. So why aren’t consumers interested?

A new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy takes a close look at 19 on-bill financing programs offered in 15 states. In many cases, less than 1 percent of eligible customers choose to participate in these programs.

The concept is just beginning to take hold, so the problem may simply be lack of awareness, says Casey Bell, lead author of the report.

“The growth of these programs depends on a number of factors. We are seeing a trend where they are emerging in more states. While I profiled 19 programs, we found 31 in 20 different states. A lot of these programs are still new, and many are still in the pilot phase,” Bell said.

Indeed, when it comes to energy, it’s not easy convincing consumers to accept new ideas, even those that directly benefit them, as behavioral scientists made clear at an ACEEE-sponsored conference on energy use and behavior in Washington, DC earlier this month. Even if they read the brochure from their utility, watch a TV commercial and spot a sign on the bus, they still are slow to respond. What does convince them? A chat with a neighbor who tried the program, a push by their church, community or social group, a direct knock on the door by a real live person.

So to improve participation levels, it may be matter of more utilities offering more on-bill financing programs and then being patient; it may take some time for participation to snowball.

Will this happen? Can you expect to see your utility offer on-bill financing any time soon? The ACEEE report points out various reasons utilities are hesitating. Not surprisingly, money is a big issue. Utilities see less opportunity to finance an on-bill program, especially now that government funds are dwindling.

Some of this pressure can be relieved by attracting more third-party capital to programs, according to the ACEEE report. This approach has potential because investors perceive utility revenue as low risk; consumers tend to prioritize paying their utility bills, since non-payment leads to shutoff of service. So, some utilities are exploring the possibility of bundling program loans with other financial products and creating a secondary market for capital.

“There is a lot of opportunity to learn from experience, and tapping into private sector sources of funding is likely critical for scalability,” Bell said.

In other instances, utilities finance on-bill programs through Community Development Financial Institutions or by leveraging government loan through agencies like the USDA’s Rural Utility Service.

So it’s going to take some experiment and innovation for on-bill financing to achieve scale. As if often the case, financial innovation is as game changing as technological advancement. We may have the smart boxes to revolutionize the way we use energy, but if utilities and consumers can’t pay for them, they offer little good.

The solar energy sector provides a good example. For years we saw little installation of solar panels on commercial buildings, despite enormous information produced by the industry about solar’s value. Then, entrepreneurs in the last decade came up with the idea of solar leasing and solar power purchase agreements. As a direct result, solar panels began sprouting on the roof tops of stores, car dealerships, office buildings and other commercial enterprises. The lesson? In our contemporary energy economy, promise finally leads to practice – when the financing is right.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Where Does PACE Financing Stand Today?
• William Hargett
• PG&E and SunRun Give Home Solar a Major Shot in the Arm
• Kerry Lieberman Needs Renewed Cooperation
• BrightSource Energy Raises Additional $90 Million

It is fair to say that when BIC, the Paris-based company known for lighters and shavers and pens, announced on December 2 that it has acquired Vancouver-based Angstrom Power, there was some surprise.

Angstrom has had a commercial portable fuel cell for some time now, unlike many of its rivals, but what does BIC see in the fuel cell industry that convinced it to pay a rumoured $18.5 million in these times of economic austerity? And is this the first signal that 2012 will see a round of M&A in the fuel cell industry?

The companies involved in the fuel cell sector tend to be of two types. The first are daughter companies of large, stable, multinational companies, which can invest for a long term outlook and understand the time horizon to return on assets is longer for new disruptive products than for their traditional offerings. Companies such as UTC Power and Rolls Royce Fuel Cells clearly fall into this category. The other, much more common, company is the small startup, where a couple of engineers who’ve stumbled out of the lab after years of toil into the bright sunshine with their new technology. A company is formed, often at this stage supported by some form of government subsidy or angel investment, with the aim of taking the product to market. But many fuel cell startups have stubbornly stayed in the pre-commercial phase. A rule of thumb is that for every fuel cell company with a commercial product, there are another seven to 10 that are pre-commercial.

So why would a global multinational with a well-known product portfolio decide to sink many millions of dollars into a fledgling industry with a reputation for over-promising and under delivering? BIC’s answer is that it has been developing hydrogen cartridges for portable power devices for nearly a decade, and there are a number of complementary areas with Angstrom Power.

That being the case, will other multinationals look to acquire fuel cell companies? Almost certainly. I wouldn’t call them sharks circling, or wolves on the hunt, but large companies that have a history of forward-looking investment and feel the time is right to bring a fuel cell startup to the commercial product stage are likely to leap in. After all, when a company is bought outright not only is the IP transferred to the new owners, but they also control the route to market, marketing and distribution: three areas the fuel cell industry has almost completely failed at.

Looking at the three main sectors of transport, portable and stationary, we see that in transport most independent companies are in the supply chain, in portable there’s a mix between stack and system developers, and in stationary there is also a good mix of independent stack and system developers. With the increased global focus on clean energy and energy efficiency, the stationary sector is likely to see the highest interest from large corporations, at least for the next 12 – 18 months. Later, as we get closer to the roll out dates of volume fuel cell vehicles, it will make sense for a number of independent vendors to be rolled up into one end-to-end company. This transport M&A activity will likely kick off sometime late 2013.

The fuel cell industry for too long has been dependent on government handouts. Time to move on folks, get real and get commercial. And this is going to require selling up.

Article by Kerry-Ann Adamson, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• New Record-Size Fuel Cell System Being Tested
• New Fuel Cell Chargers on the Way
• Mercedes-Benz’s New Fuel Cell Leasing Program to Bring The F-Cell to the US
• DOE Requests Information on Commercial Readiness of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies
• New Hydrogen Cartridges Can Power Small Devices and Lights