Blog Posts

As a whole food supplement manufacturer based in Manchester, MegaFood holds human well-being at the core of what we do. We strive to ensure the well-being of our customers, our employees and our community, and we recognize that crucial pieces of that effort are a healthy environment and a strong economy. As a certified B Corp, we’ve made a promise to use business as a force for good. Always. As MegaFood’s CEO, I couldn’t be prouder of that promise. To that very accord, MegaFood has taken a stand and raised our voice in support of policies that will scale up clean energy – both here in Concord and in our nation’s capital. It’s got me pretty revved up. While bipartisan policy solutions so often seem hard to come by, energy policy is one area where we see possible compromise across the aisle in Concord. This spring, New Hampshire lawmakers from both political parties worked together on a bill (Senate Bill 446) that would update New Hampshire’s net metering law to encourage larger renewable energy projects. SB 446 would raise the current cap on net metering projects from one megawatt to five megawatts, making it easier for businesses, municipalities and other large energy users to invest in larger, onsite renewable projects. This change would expand the amount of locally produced renewable energy in New Hampshire, which would in turn create more clean tech jobs, help stabilize energy prices, and reduce our need for imported fossil fuels and skyrocketing transmission costs. It seems hard to argue against. Net metering allows electric utility customers who invest in renewable energy projects – such as rooftop solar or small-scale hydropower – to cut costs by selling the excess power they generate back to the grid. More than 40 states already have existing net metering policies in place, and they have proven to be an important tool to drive investment and economic growth. In addition to the numerous economic benefits, increasing clean energy would also help reduce air pollution and improve public health, providing major benefits to Granite State communities – which is of vital importance to our company. It is clear that SB 446 is a home run for New Hampshire, and it has drawn broad support from across the state. A large group of municipalities, businesses and health care institutions publicly endorsed the bill because they know, like we do, that raising the net metering cap and expanding our clean energy potential would greatly benefit the Granite State. Last spring, MegaFood joined with other companies and institutions, including Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Timberland, Wire Belt Company of America and others, to send a letter to legislators in support of SB 446. In other words, I’m not the only business leader banging the drum on this issue. Legislators are also in agreement on the bill, which passed both the House and Senate with unparalleled bipartisan support. Much of the Legislature’s Republican leadership sponsored the bill, and it received no significant opposition when it came to a vote. Unfortunately, Gov. Chris Sununu missed the opportunity to advance this beneficial legislation when he vetoed the bill in June, citing outdated claims about electric rates. This move was in direct opposition to the numerous businesses and institutions that told the governor such reform would help control energy costs and ensure that New Hampshire is a competitive place to do business.  We join many of our peers in expressing our profound disappointment in Gov. Sununu’s veto. New Hampshire already lags behind our neighboring states in advancing a clean energy economy, and now we risk falling further behind. The good news is that legislators will have an opportunity to override the governor’s veto when they reconvene this month. Legislators from both sides of the aisle should heed the call of businesses and recognize the value of a larger net metering cap and the benefits it will bring to our economy, environment, and communities. We must keep New Hampshire moving forward so that it remains a good place to live, work and do business. Who’s with me? (Robert Craven is the CEO of MegaFood, a whole food supplement company headquartered in Manchester.) This piece was originally posted on the Concord Monitor's website. 

Record heatwaves and droughts across Europe and Asia are rippling across global wheat markets. Wheat futures are hitting three year highs as production levels plummet in Russia, Ukraine and other European countries. These dynamics will likely mean more expensive bread and flour for many global consumers, especially in net-importing countries like Egypt. Closer to home, hotter drier conditions are pinching water-dependent sectors across the western United States. While West Texas cotton growers are seeing their plants shrivel,  the entire U.S. Southwest is reeling from a two-decade-long drought that threatens far more than agriculture. Of particular concern is the ever-drier Colorado River, which irrigates more than 5 million acres of farmland that supplies most of the country’s winter lettuce and vegetables. This month, federal officials warned of unprecedented water shortages in the river that may require the first-ever cuts in water allocations for entire states, starting with ever-more-densely-populated Arizona, as early as 2020. These events are not anomalies. They are the latest examples of how growing competition for water, poor water management, aging infrastructure and climate change are exacerbating water risks across the global economy. From agriculture and mining to energy and entertainment, every business in the world relies on water. As population growth, water pollution and hotter, more volatile weather events strain the world’s freshwater supplies, companies and investors can no longer ignore the critical water issue. Consider the following: Forty percent of global water demand is unlikely to be met as soon as 2030, according to a United Nations report, unless companies, investors and governments step up water management and stewardship efforts. At least 50 percent of the stocks listed in each of the four major U.S. stock indices are in industries with medium to high water risks, according to 2017 Ceres research. That’s akin to saying that roughly half the industries in our economy face significant water risks.  Simply put, investor water risks are systemic and material. The global food sector, which uses 70 percent of the world’s freshwater, faces the most immediate risks from the multiple challenges of water scarcity, water pollution and water demand pressures from other sectors. Hotter, more volatile extreme weather caused by climate change is compounding risks for this $5 trillion sector. Recent HSBC research concluded that of all cereals it analyzed, wheat was the commodity most vulnerable to climate change. Moreover, it concluded that agriculturally-dependent and climate-vulnerable economies are likely to face structural economic risks in the long term, with countries such as Ukraine being the highest risk economies. “We think countries will need to build resilience in their agricultural systems, achieved via agricultural technology, improved water infrastructure and new farming methods,” the HSBC report concludes. Reflecting a core theme of SIWI World Water Week this week in Stockholm, hotter drier conditions also pose profound societal risks, especially in developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa where food security can be an everyday concern. Water risks are also being felt in the mining and energy sectors.  This summer’s heat waves in France forced four nuclear plants to temporarily shut down when they were unable to withdraw cooling water from unusually warm rivers. Nuclear plant operations in Sweden, Germany and Finland were curtailed for the same reason. Global beverage companies also face growing water risks, many of them reputational. Consider the case of Nestle, whose water bottling operations in California and Michigan have faced public opposition due to water availability concerns. Or Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, which have faced consumer boycotts in India due to similar concerns. No doubt, investors and companies are paying more attention to water risks, although not yet at the level they need to. One indicator of this gap: while 81 percent of major U.S. companies in water-dependent sectors have water stewardship programs, only 37 percent have set qualitative targets to better manage water resources facing the biggest risks. Investors are also boosting their attention. One positive indicator is the more than 100 investors, with $20 trillion in collective assets, who  participate in the Ceres Investor Water Hub, a working group of the Ceres Investor Network. These investors  put their competitive differences aside  to engage companies on water issues and produce resources to help investor peers improve their  water practices and understand their role in building resilient economies and businesses. Investors have many  options for managing their water vulnerabilities, the first being  awareness that water-scarcity concerns can pose material risks. Among the other steps investors should consider, as outlined in the Ceres Investor Water Toolkit, are the following: Set clear priorities and goals from the top down. Investors can consider a wide range of options, from asking portfolio companies to improve their water disclosure, to elevating water as a priority for company board of directors, to aligning with international norms such as Sustainable Development Goal 6 and the Principles on Valuing Water. Conduct portfolio water footprinting to highlight potentially common geographic or systemic water risks (for example, agriculture related or social licenses). Integrate water-related research into buy/sell analysis decisions for equities, municipal water bonds and private equity projects by understanding where water risks lie in a company’s’ value chain and assessing if management is mitigating risks at the scale needed. The takeaway is clear. Water risks are growing as global populations swell and weather patterns become more volatile and variable. Managing these risks should be a critical priority for those seeking to deliver strong financial returns for their businesses and their investors. The vibrancy of the global economy and the planet – and the health of billions who depend on both are at stake. This post originally appeared on Mindy Lubber's Sustainable Capitalism Forbes blog. 

State legislators have until the end of the month to pass the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. There is an urgent need to provide clean drinking water to the 1 million Californians who lack access to such supplies, says Kirsten James of Ceres.  

From software to robots to technology originally designed to detect water on Mars, market-based policy approaches are spurring innovation, writes Ceres’ Kirsten James.

In 2008, the world was plunged into a financial crisis because investors made bad decisions on financial risks they didn’t fully understand. Ten years later, a new crisis is brewing. But this time, the risks are sustainability issues such as climate change, water scarcity and human rights abuses. The evidence is clear that sustainability risks affect the corporate bottom line. A recent study by the Universal Ecological Fund found that by 2028, climate change will cost the $360 billion per year, about half the expected growth of the economy. In 2016, multi-national corporations disclosed that they experienced $14 billion of losses from water-related risks, a five-fold increase since the previous year. But although a growing number of investors are integrating sustainability into their investment analysis, they remain the exception rather than the rule. Why? It’s not that the information isn’t out there. Companies, particularly large businesses, have been disclosing information on their sustainability plans and performance for years. The problem is that the information companies provide largely isn’t useful to investors. That’s the main finding of Disclose What Matters, a new Ceres report that analyzes the sustainability disclosure practices of some of the world’s largest companies. We find that most global companies provide comparable disclosure - with around 70 percent of large global companies using the GRI Standards. But far fewer companies disclose their sustainability performance in a way that is financially relevant. And most large companies don’t produce sustainability disclosures in as rigorous a manner as financial disclosures; for instance, by externally verifying their reports. The takeaway of the report is clear: The quality of sustainability disclosures provided by most businesses needs to improve to help the market make informed decisions. Market efficiency depends on good information. Without it, both companies and investors suffer. Investors recognize this reality and have been putting increasing pressure on companies to provide comparable, financially relevant and reliable disclosures on their sustainability performance. What’s interesting though, is that investors are not just asking for better sustainability disclosures - they are looking for companies to demonstrate that they have the right governance systems that support the production of these disclosures. The recently launched Climate Action 100+ initiative, which is supported by 289 investors with nearly $30 trillion in assets under management, calls on the world’s largest greenhouse gas-emitting companies to ‘improve governance on climate change, curb emissions and strengthen climate-related financial disclosures.’ ROLE FOR CORPORATE SECRETARIES Given this focus by investors, it is increasingly clear that developing this kind of ‘decision-useful’ sustainability disclosures can no longer be the exclusive function of a company’s sustainability department. Investor relations and the CFO’s office should be, and in many cases are, involved. Given the focus on governance, the corporate secretary also needs to play an important role. The corporate secretary should work proactively with their company’s investor relations and sustainability teams in a number of key ways, including tracking the growing investor focus on sustainability issues and driving the internal analysis of whether certain sustainability issues are material to their company. Building on that understanding of investor focus and materiality, they should then facilitate decision-making on which issues should be brought to the board’s attention and how they should be disclosed publicly. In fact, our report finds that investors pay very close attention to whether a company’s board oversees sustainability issues, and the quality and scope of their materiality assessments. Both indicators are seen as important evidence that a company is prioritizing sustainability issues as important to the bottom line. However, we also find that disclosure on these indicators is limited. Most companies disclose that they have the relevant systems in place. But they don’t connect the dots back to decision making, particularly in terms of business strategy and performance. The Society for Corporate Governance recently released two primers on sustainability that have useful background for corporate secretaries who want to better understand the growing investor focus on sustainability and the legal perspectives to keep in mind when disclosing sustainability performance. What can corporate secretaries and other governance professionals within companies do to bridge the gap and provide useful information to the investor community? Disclose What Matters offers the following recommendations: Commit to the complete use of sustainability reporting standards  Corporate secretaries should educate themselves on the various sustainability-related disclosure standards, and involve themselves in the internal discussions on the most appropriate standards that their companies should adopt. Our report recommends that all companies should use GRI Standards, but should also consider other relevant disclosure frameworks that can provide a better focus for the specific information they must disclose. Corporate secretaries should also drive the discussions on whether and when to use additional frameworks, such as those from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board or the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which are particularly prized by the investor community.   Disclose the impacts of governance systems for sustainability Most large global companies disclose the use of relevant systems to show how they prioritize sustainability issues and whether they see these issues as financially relevant. But they don’t disclose how these systems link to decision-making on business performance. Corporate secretaries can help connect these dots.   Externally assure material sustainability disclosures When companies can provide robust external assurance prepared with the same level of rigor as financial disclosures, these disclosures will provide the ‘investor-ready’ and mature approach that investors look for in sustainability disclosures. Corporate secretaries can drive the decision making on this. Disclosure for its own sake isn’t the point. As strategic agenda setters, corporate secretaries can help companies bridge the gap and provide executable, relevant information to investors, to help companies move from simply ‘disclosing more’ to ‘disclosing what matters.’ Veena Ramani is program director of the capital market systems at Ceres This blog originally appeared on Corporate Secretary. 

Colorado’s largest electric utility, Xcel Energy, has a plan to dramatically shift the way we produce energy by increasing the amount of renewable energy produced right here in the Centennial State. Doing so would deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits to Colorado residents in the form of new jobs, increased revenue for communities, and lower utility bills for both businesses and consumers. With a decision expected next month by the Public Utilities Commission, Colorado has an opportunity to become a national leader on clean energy and serve as a model for states across the country. In addition to the environmental benefits, clean energy is a major driver of economic growth. I am lucky to live in Colorado and work for an investment firm, Impax Asset Management, that manages approximately $15 billion in assets. We see clean energy investments as attractive in a number of ways. Clean energy enhances the reliability and resiliency of our electric grid by adding a more diverse set of resources like wind, solar and energy storage. With the prices for renewables and energy storage falling, clean energy is also good for consumers. For these reasons, we support the emphasis Xcel’s Colorado Energy Plan places on developing local, renewable energy. As a part of the plan, Xcel proposes a $2.5 billion statewide investment to procure 1,800 MW of wind and solar, the early retirement of two coal plants, and the development of 275 MW of energy storage resources. Altogether, this plan is projected to help Xcel Colorado achieve 55 percent renewable energy by 2026 and reduce greenhouse gases emissions by nearly 60 percent from 2005 levels. In doing so the plan will also help reduce air pollution and improve public health, especially in Colorado’s Front Range communities, which struggle to meet federal air quality standards. This proposal demonstrates that investing in renewable energy makes economic and financial sense for Colorado. Overall, Xcel projects that its customers will save approximately $215 million if this plan is implemented. This savings would be thanks in part to the dramatic drop in prices for solar, wind, and energy storage — a trend that is likely to continue. In fact, the solicitation process for projects proposed in the plan attracted record-breaking low renewable energy bids — a signal to other major utilities that extensive, long-term investments in renewable energy is an effective way to keep prices low for customers. This dynamic is not exclusive to Colorado. Recent clean energy procurement plans in Nevadaand Arizona further demonstrate this trend, setting new price records for renewable energy bids. Moreover, the projects proposed in the plan will be located exclusively in-state and across eight different counties — taking advantage of the ample wind and solar resources that we have right here in Colorado. This statewide focus will boost the state’s energy independence and spur economic development throughout the state, ensuring the plan delivers value to all Coloradans. Colorado already has a robust clean energy sector, employing more than 57,000 workers in fields from energy efficiency to renewable energy and more. Xcel’s planned investments will continue to create jobs and grow this sector, ensuring that Colorado’s economy will continue to thrive as we transition to a low-carbon future. The proposed plan will also help Colorado cities and the state achieve their ambitious climate and clean energy goals. Gov. John Hickenlooper set a goal for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector 35 percent by 2030, while cities like Pueblo and Denver recently made commitments to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. The Colorado Energy Plan demonstrates a commitment by Xcel to be a part of the solution and sends a message that they are ready, willing and able to help these communities meet their goals. A continued commitment to clean energy will create a prosperous future for all Coloradans. The proposed Colorado Energy Plan will benefit our communities, our economy and our environment. We applaud Xcel’s commitment to the state’s future and encourage the Commission to make it a reality. Julie Gorte is senior vice president for sustainable investing, Impax Asset Management LLC and Pax World Funds, and a member of Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability. This opinion piece was originally posted on ColoradoPolitics.com. 

Investors are renowned, and often ridiculed, for having the attention spans of goldfish. A quick Google search for “what does long term mean in finance” yields answers ranging from one to five years, often with a sheepish acknowledgement that this isn’t really long term, in the real world. But finance — like food, news, rumor, and work — does seem to march to an ever-faster drummer. It should therefore be no surprise that finance as a whole might have trouble coming to terms with how to deal with the impact on value of climate change. Unlike our previous global technological crisis (the Y2K bug), this one will play out over decades, even centuries, and even if we fix it, it will be decades before that impact will be apparent. So, it is impressive that the proxy season of 2018 clearly demonstrated that climate change has become a mainstream issue in finance. Climate change is a long-term issue from the point of view of human life spans. It’s a termites-in-the-woodwork problem, which can be far more difficult to muster resources to solve, compared to wolf-at-the-door problems like Y2K. But we are making progress. Why? The value at risk is enormous—and so are the opportunities. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates the value at risk to be between $4.2trn and $43trn between now and 2100. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that global GDP could be reduced between 2%-10% by the end of the century due to climate change. For investors, a substantial portion—over half—of the risks of climate risk are not hedgeable, according to a study from Cambridge University. On the bright side, reducing emissions presents trillion-dollar opportunities as well — $23trn, according to one estimate by the World Economic Forum. These are the kinds of things that investors understand, and an agenda that investors and boards can drive, according to a new report, Getting Climate Smart: A Primer for Corporate Directors in a Changing Environment, from Ceres. Market risks and opportunities in trillion-dollar magnitudes are matters that companies should see as strategically important, making them issues for corporate boards. There are many things that boards can do to understand these risks and opportunities, and integrate them into corporate strategy, including conducting materiality assessments, recruiting climate-competent directors, and assuring that boards have resources and education sufficient to understand climate change risks and opportunities. Companies and boards have many resources available to understand how they might be affected by (and affect) climate change, including the new framework for climate-related disclosure published last year by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD). However, there is no generic guide that will be as good as a committed, climate-smart board in assessing the points of tangency between climate change and any specific company’s business risks and opportunities. Governance matters. Another recent Ceres report, Systems Rule: How Board Governance Can Drive Sustainability Performance, notes that companies with strong board systems to oversee sustainability are better positioned to deliver strong sustainability performance—and that, in turn, is associated with better financial performance. There’s some good evidence on what happens to financial performance when companies take on climate change specifically as a set of strategic risks and opportunities. A recent paper from faculty at Stanford and Yonsei University showed that a portfolio with long positions in carbon-efficient companies and short positions in carbon-inefficient companies generated a positive abnormal return of 3.5-5.4% per year, and that “these carbon-efficient firms tend to be ‘good firms’ in terms of financial characteristics and corporate governance.’” A report commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment found that ten of 11 climate-friendly indices outperformed their respective conventional benchmarks, and eight of the 11 also outperformed on a risk-adjusted return basis. These studies demonstrate that reducing emissions does not have to harm returns and is more often than not associated with outperformance rather than underperformance. That idea, and that evidence, is likely responsible for the results of the 2018 proxy season on climate change. Andrew Logan of Ceres points out that the season established a few firsts: the first North American company board to endorse a shareholder proposal on climate change; investors rejecting a company’s contention that its inadequate disclosure of climate risk was good enough; the first company to consider what limiting warming to 2 Degrees Celsius means to the value of its assets. One of the biggest untold stories of the 2018 proxy season was how few climate related shareholder proposals went to a vote. It wasn’t because investors are less interested in it, but just the opposite: it no longer takes a shareholder proposal on a proxy to move companies forward on climate change.  This kind of success rarely happens without pushback. There have been moves in Congress to limit shareholder proposals. The SEC has issued new guidelines addressing the conditions under which shareholder proposals can be excluded, raising concerns and creating some puzzlement as to consistency and clarity. A new business group is claiming that shareholder engagements do not represent “main street investors,” and an industry group has published a study purporting to show that shareholder engagement does not create value, using a flawed methodology consisting of a sample of a mere ten proposals over a four-year period.  Don’t be misled by the backlash. Those who claim that engagement does not create value can do so only with their own flawed research. Research that is peer reviewed, on the other hand, and that looks at a robust sample of 847 engagements, finds that successful shareholder engagements are associated with higher sales growth, without harming profitability. 2018’s proxy season shows that investors are growing more interested in addressing climate risks, and that is good for investors of all stripes, from Main Street to Wall Street.  In short, climate change will affect the value of companies. Inattention to its risks can and probably will destroy value. Managing and mitigating those risks while taking advantage of opportunities presented by climate change can be a value creator. The best way for companies to take advantage of these opportunities and mitigate the risks is to establish formal board mandates for sustainability, assure that sustainability and climate expertise are readily available to (and on) boards, and to establish mechanisms for accountability, such as linking executive pay to performance against sustainability and climate goals. Julie Gorte is Senior Vice President for Sustainable Investing, Impax Asset Management and Pax World Funds which is a member of Ceres Investor Network. This piece was originally posted on Responsible Investor here. 

We remain steadfast in meeting our obligation toward a low-carbon future.  It is our responsibility, both as a corporate citizen and a sustainability leader, to tackle our climate impact and set an example for others. As a company, we have used our voice to advocate for strong climate policies, as well as taken action to reduce our climate impact.  Today, we announced our new climate action strategy, which includes ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions in our owned-and-operated facilities and across our global supply chain.  The targets we’ve set ensure that Levi Strauss & Co. will be doing its part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, which is consistent with the Paris Agreement.  These targets, which are aggressive in their timeline and aims, will help set the standard for the apparel industry for reducing carbon emissions. Specifically, we are committed to achieving the following by 2025: Sourcing 100 percent renewable electricity by investing in renewable energy across our owned-and-operated facilities. A 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all owned-and-operated facilities, which will be achieved through investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency upgrades. A 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions in the supply chain, which will in large part be achieved by working with key suppliers to expand the International Finance Corporation’s Partnership (IFC) for Cleaner Textiles (PaCT) The IFC PaCT is an innovative public-private partnership that provides suppliers with technical expertise and access to low-cost financing to support sustainable energy and water investments. While we have demonstrated leadership through efforts in our own operations, we are acutely aware that the apparel industry’s most significant climate impact is in the global supply chain.  Over the last several years, we have piloted innovative supply chain programs and, encouraged by the results, have begun to scale them accordingly. We are partnering with our suppliers and the IFC to finance investments in energy-efficiency initiatives and renewables at supplier facilities.  These investments will not only reduce the carbon footprint and costs for our suppliers, they also will serve to catalyze action within the apparel industry and across other industries. Mindy Lubber, CEO and president of the sustainability nonprofit organization Ceres, lauded our innovative strategy, stating “It is exactly what is needed to get to the scale and scope that is necessary to ensure a sustainable future for the next generation.”  We have been a proud member of Ceres for nearly 10 years, working together on sustainability initiatives to protect the environment. Our science-based GHG reduction targets are an extension of our company’s longstanding commitment to sustainability throughout our business.  The approach also complements our advocacy efforts to advance climate policy as a founding member of the Ceres BICEP Network, a cross-industry network focused on making the business case to policymakers to accelerate the clean energy transition and address climate change. If left unchecked, climate change will have devastating effects on the communities in which we operate, our business, and the world at large.  Ambitious targets motivate action, and climate action is what our world needs. Read the full press release now. This blog originally appeared on Levi Strauss & Co's Unzipped Blog. Levi Strauss & Co is a Ceres Company Network member and a Ceres BICEP Network member. 

On Monday July 23, Representative Carlos Curbelo, R-FL, and his co-sponsor introduced a bill, the “Market Choice Act,” that would eliminate the current federal gasoline tax (which consumers pay at the pump and which has not gone up since 1993) and put a price on the carbon content of imported and domestically produced fossil fuels (oil, coal, and gas), starting in 2020. Certain industries that produce carbon emissions outside of energy production (like cement, aluminum and steel manufacturing) would also be assessed a fee for the carbon content of their emissions. This bill is the first carbon-pricing bill introduced by a Republican since 2010, and represents both Curbelo’s leadership within the Climate Solutions Caucus and the growing willingness of an as-yet-small number of GOP legislators to seek practical, market-based approaches to dealing with climate change. Playing the infrastructure angle Seventy percent of the resulting revenue from the $24 per ton price—pegged to increase at two percent above inflation annually and much higher than what could ever come from the current gas tax—would be used, in Curbelo’s bill, to fund the Federal Highway Trust Fund for the nation’s roads, bridges and other critical transportation infrastructure. Since the current gas tax has not been increased in 25 years, this alternative source of revenue could provide much-needed support for infrastructure. (The American Society of Civil Engineers currently gives only a D+ grade to our national infrastructure.) Curbelo is presenting the Market Choice Act, therefore, as a way to increase revenue for something with wide bipartisan and private sector support: finding funds for the infrastructure improvements the nation needs to remain economically competitive. The remaining thirty percent of revenue would go to state grants that would offset the resulting higher energy costs for low-income families, to coastal restoration work, transition assistance for fossil fuel works, and to energy research and development. Unsurprisingly, given its Republican origins, the bill would also press pause on certain existing EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources—provided the bill’s implementation ended up meeting reduction goals. (If not, those regulations would be put back in force, along with an accelerated tax rate.) If Curbelo’s bill were enacted, it would not be the final word on climate policy. The price it proposes starting at ($24 per ton) is not sufficient to put us on track to meet long-term climate goals, nor does it cover greenhouse gas emissions beyond carbon—meaning there would still be a need for complementary policies. And some in the environmental community remain wary of any attempt to roll back or pause EPA regulations through legislation. Nevertheless, it’s a step in the right direction, and projections (still being refined) suggest its implementation could put the U.S. on track to meet the 2025 greenhouse gas commitments proposed under the Obama administration as part of the Paris climate accord. Like the numerous reduction plans and commitments being offered by businesses who’ve pledged that “We Are Still In” the Paris agreement, Curbelo’s Market Choice Act offers a substantive path forward to address climate change despite the current administration’s opposition to ambitious action. Stepping backward In contrast, some of Curbelo’s Republican House colleagues seem determined to move backward on climate change. In April, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-LA, and co-sponsor Rep. David McKinley, R-WV, introduced a resolution that denounces any tax on carbon pollution as “detrimental to the U.S. economy,” among many other criticisms. This non-binding resolution — which allowed (or forced) lawmakers to go on the record in support or opposition of  a certain policy — focused exclusively (and incorrectly) on the perceived negative economic impacts of carbon pricing. On July 19, The Scalise and McKinley resolution was pushed forward for a vote prior to Curbelo’s bill being introduced, a move perhaps designed to box-in Democrats in competitive races this fall—but with the unintended consequence of presenting a difficult choice to moderate Republicans in moderate Congressional districts—districts that want to see action on climate change. Unfortunately, the resolution passed (229 to 180). Promisingly, however, it was opposed by six Republicans . This count may seem like small change, but it is a real  improvement from 2016 when all Republicans voted in favor of a similar measure. The will to buck the GOP party line on addressing climate change, in favor of common-sense, pragmatic solutions, is clearly  growing. This resolution missed the mark by offering a one-sided, unbalanced critique and revealing that when it comes to a carbon tax Reps. Scalise and McKinley are out of step not only with Rep. Curbelo and  other moderate Republicans, but also with major businesses, public opinion, and much of the rest of the world. Indeed, private sector voices have weighed in support of a federal price on carbon. Investors worth nearly $700 billion in assets under management and major companies have spoken out against the Scalise resolution and against the idea that a national price on carbon would be "detrimental" to the US economy. The transition to a clean energy economy is inevitable and irreversible, and a price on carbon pollution like Rep. Curbelo’s bill proposes would go a long way to help ensure a smooth, predictable, and rapid transition. If Reps. Scalise and McKinley — both of whom represent states with significant fossil fuel industries — are serious about protecting the economic wellbeing of their constituents, they should be eager to support a price on carbon pollution and help stabilize the risks in these industries. Climate change is a real problem We cannot discuss the benefits of carbon pricing, whether in Curbelo’s bill or any other approach,  without acknowledging and understanding the problem it’s trying to solve. Climate change — and the greenhouse gas emissions causing it — represents the biggest market failure in human history. It poses threats to our economy, international stability, human health, and our very way of life. It is an enormous global challenge — but one that we can solve with innovative private sector leaders, smart policy design, and international collaboration. Fortunately, economists have long understood that we can correct market failures, if we have the political will to take action. A price on carbon does just that. It’s unfortunate and telling that the Scalise/McKinley resolution makes zero mention of climate change or even acknowledges that a carbon price is the climate policy most in line with conservative values and thinking, offering a market-based solution to a pressing problem. Curbelo’s bill both acknowledges the reality of climate change and touts the market’s ability to help address it. Ceres will continue to make the economic case for climate action in the U.S. and advocate for economically-efficient policies like a well-designed carbon price, along with other supportive policies.  To Learn more about how a price on carbon would mitigate climate change and its worst impacts, read Ryan's previous blog here.  

This blog was originally posted by Symantec, a Ceres BICEP Network member, on the company's Corporate Responsibility Blog.  CR Experts Weigh in on the Trends Shaping Their Regions – And the World Engaging nonprofits, public policy and advocacy organizations, and issue experts – both globally and regionally – provides the expertise companies need to make a positive impact that resonates everywhere they “work”. Symantec’s CR partners offer their insights on the trends shaping the future of CR. Susan McPherson highlighted in her January Forbes article 8 Corporate Responsibility Trends to Look for in 2018, “events of the past year have tested companies in a number of ways and changed mainstream discourse about the role corporations should play in advancing and addressing social and global challenges.” As corporate responsibility (CR) becomes more central on the business agenda, it is also becoming increasingly complex. To address global issues at scale, yet account for a multifaceted regional network, it is challenging to prioritize efforts – or even to know where to start. At Symantec, we build relationships with nonprofits, public policy and advocacy organizations, and education partners – both globally and regionally – that provide the expertise we need to make a positive impact that resonates everywhere we “work”. For example, our first CR partnership was with the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) whose 10 Principles ranging from human rights to environmental sustainability continue to guide our CR strategy.  As the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative, UNGC has grown to represent over 9,700 companies and is leveraging its unique local network based in 76 countries to “mobilize a global movement of sustainable companies and stakeholders to create the world we want.” From Ceres to CECP to CSR Asia and Business in the Community Ireland, we bring you insights from some of our partners and experts who weighed in on the trends shaping their regions – and in many cases the world. Ceres: The rise of policy advocacy and collaborative activism In the United States, collective action from the business sector on climate, clean energy and water policy advocacy at the federal, state and local level has grown tremendously over the past few years. Companies increasingly recognize the need to turn outside their four walls and engage in policy discussions in order to begin to tackle large-scale issues such as climate change that can be economic opportunities if addressed appropriately. As a leading U.S. organizer of investor and company support for climate, clean energy and water resilience policies, we have expanded our efforts to connect corporate America with decision-makers. The Ceres BICEP Network is comprised of some of the most influential companies advocating for stronger climate and clean energy policies at the federal and state levels, while the Connect the Drops campaign of major companies operating in California advocates for smart and sustainable water management policies. BICEP is currently at 49 companies and active in nine states, recently welcoming Adobe, Kaiser-Permanente and Salesforce to its historic base. Connect the Drops added eight new companies this spring. We continue to help our members raise their voice on critical issues, weighing in on policies to expand clean energy solutions, reduce carbon emissions, - increase corporate access to renewable energy and assure access to clean water for all. For example, BICEP and Connect the Drops have played key roles in California, advancing smart climate, clean energy and water policies that can serve as models for other states and nations.  Additionally, on the other side of the country, BICEP companies helped pass legislation in Virginia to modernize the grid and increase the availability of clean energy resources in the state. This fall, Ceres and its investor and corporate partners will be central in the first ever Global Climate Action Summit, to be held in California. ​ Collaboration around policy advocacy is increasing. Ceres BICEP network is made up of nearly 50 of the most influential companies in the United States advocating for a clean energy and low-carbon future. CECP: A whole company approach to valuing social investment   The trend towards developing signature causes, focus areas, or pillars, has evolved over the past decade— transitioning from thinly spread philanthropy to a strategic approach of aligning corporate responsibility programs to core business values and services. However, how do companies value these investments? According to a Goldman Sachs study citing Bloomberg data, the explosion of sustainability or ESG reporting has led to over six million data points being reported by companies across 450 metrics in 2016. In many cases traditional measurement of social impact doesn’t account for innovation beyond donations. Companies can now look to any portion of their business for opportunities for improvement and the integration of CR. For example, at IKEA social enterprise sits within their value chain and the same rigor is applied to the social enterprises they support as to the suppliers they bring on board. Symantec’s software donation program helps nonprofits across the world secure their data and operations, expanding the definition of “customers” for their world leading cyber security products. CECP’s recent report with support from Cisco – “What Counts: The S in ESG New Conclusions” – highlights a new – holistic – measurement of a company’s comprehensive social engagement programming. This calculation “Total Social Investment” (or TSI), is a forward-looking reflection of the innovative ways companies invest in society. TSI offers a high-level and comparable snapshot for use by investors and other stakeholders to determine the value created by the “S” efforts in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) measures.  It captures initiatives that would have previously gone unmeasured: for example, new practices such as impact investing, the employment of individuals whose job it is to provide social services or collaborating with partners that aren’t formally organized non-profit organizations. The goal is for companies to report TSI using a shared definition by 2020 so companies can disclose the full value of their social investments and companies and stakeholders can effectively benchmark. CECP’s 2017 “Good Beyond Giving” pilot study looks at broadening the value generation from the S in ESG by looking beyond traditional measures to inform new definitions and valuation guidance for reporting. CECP’s research shows that CSR business alignment has gone much deeper to include integration with operations, assets, process, and functions in the firm. Business in the Community Ireland (BITCI): Building brand through impactful regional storytelling Business in the Community Ireland, is a network of leading companies addressing sustainability challenges in Ireland. In the past, the Irish corporate culture tended to be quite reserved when it came to communicating CR impacts. However, today that is changing vastly. The drivers are now there to tell the story – both within Ireland and globally – and it has become the differentiator in the war on talent. Regulation such as the EU Directive on Non-financial and Diversity Information has added to this as large public interest companies within Member States must now be able to effectively report on ESG impacts. However, many companies are struggling to fully communicate the value and impact of corporate responsibility both internally and externally. For example, a lot of our member companies don’t have adequate systems to track regional impact data or to communicate their impacts, to tell that wholesome story. For this reason, BITCI created the Business Impact Map to showcase the impact that BITCI member companies are making across Ireland and to provide a holistic picture of the collective impact of the BITCI Network. For the calendar year 2017, the map represents almost €28M worth of corporate support to the community and voluntary sector in Ireland and over 235K volunteer hours. In the last five years, employees from BITCI member companies have volunteered over one million hours. Alongside the impact map, each year we launch an extensive communications campaign to connect these strong stories to the stakeholders who care about them.  This year, our campaign #strongertogether launched in March and featured a story on Martin Coughlan, software engineer at Symantec who is an ambassador for online safety and cyber bullying at schools across Dublin. In its seventh year, the impact map is seen as a stepping stone to something bigger. For example, we are looking at how to move beyond the “inputs” to quantifying impact. The map isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s a way to sustain an important conversation about how business can make an impact.  ​ Business in the Community Ireland’s Business Impact Map showcases the impact of member companies across Ireland. Here, Symantec’s profile on the Business Impact map shows over 40 community organizations benefitting from the company’s community engagement. CSR Asia: The exponential growth of CR in Asia Over the last 5-6 years we have seen exponential growth in the number of Asian-based companies adopting CSR and sustainability principles into business strategy.  Among the CSR leaders in the region is Huawei which acknowledges that to be a truly global brand the company needs to lead on sustainability issues material to the industry.  Huawei has been championing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at an international level, with an emphasis on SDG4: Quality Education, and the role ICT can play in realizing education for all by 2030.  While many companies are progressing their sustainability and CSR agendas, most companies are facing challenges when it comes to defining a strategic framework for and understanding the actual impact of their efforts. CSR Asia’s Tracking the Trends, an annual expert stakeholder research, provides a snapshot of the sustainability and corporate responsibility topics and trends likely to emerge and how stakeholders expect businesses to respond. Since 2015, climate change has remained top of the list while supply chain and human rights has moved up into second place. In 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals appeared, and have since moved up from sixth to third place this year. Additionally, in 2018, when looking at the most influential groups, NGOs were replaced at the top by companies. Creating positive impact everywhere you work It is exciting and promising that business is stepping up on so many fronts.  However, it presents a new challenge and responsibility for global companies and their CR teams – one that requires calling on issue-based and regional experts. To ensure you can create global impact that has value everywhere you work.