Major US insurance company Farmers, owned by multinational financial services company Zurich, the world’s 75th largest public company, has launched class action suits against dozens of US municipalities alleging negligence in management of storm drainage. The suits stem from flooding which occurred last year and which Farmers claims was caused by the effects of climate change and ignored by the municipalities.

The insurer claims that local officials are aware that climate change is causing heavier rainfall but that they have not taken measures to alleviate the resulting flooding. The suits seek reimbursement to the insurance company of moneys paid out to policy holders to compensate for flood damage.

This is a Goliath versus Goliath legal battle which could prove to be an important game changer with respect to municipal government climate change policy. Legal experts consulted by GallonDaily think that Farmers has only a slight chance of winning but it may not be too long before the strategy, which is being rolled out in several parts of the US, finds a judge or jury willing to find in favour of the insurance company. Then it will likely be on the way to the Supreme Court. The key issue is not so much whether the municipalities have ignored the likely increase in flooding resulting from climate change but whether municipal governments are protected in law from liability for this type of policy inaction.

There is also speculation that the municipalities will in turn sue the engineering firms that advised them on their drainage plans.

Note that the legal situation facing Canadian municipalities is not the same as that facing US municipalities and the outcome of this series of suits may or may not have applicability in Canada.

Environment and Energy Publishing is making a more complete report on the Farmers Insurance suit available at http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059999532

Zurich offers a flood resilience program for communities and policyholders, primarily in developing countries. A brochure about the program is available at http://www.zurich.com/internet/main/SiteCollectionDocuments/corporate-responsibility/Flood-Resilience-Factsheet.pdf

A report published this week by Oxfam International claims that the world’s “Big 10” food and beverage companies, including many well-known to Canadians, are both highly vulnerable to climate change and are major contributors to the problem. Together they emit so much greenhouse gas that, if they were a single country, they would be the 25th most polluting in the world. Oxfam says that “The “Big 10”, Associated British Foods, Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever, should be capable of cutting their combined emissions by a further 80 million tons by 2020. This would be equivalent to taking all of the cars in Los Angeles, Beijing, London, and New York off the road.

Among the many key points made in the report:

• The “Big 10” together emit 263.7 million tons of GHGs – more than Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway combined. Emissions from their operations account for 29.8 million tons. Of their total emissions, about half come from the production of agricultural materials from their supply chains, yet these emissions are not covered by the reduction targets the companies have set.
• Experts predict that by 2050 there will be 50 million more people made hungry because of climate change.
• Some of the “Big 10” companies admit that climate change is already beginning to harm them financially. Unilever says it now loses $415 million a year, while General Mills reported losing 62 days of production in the first fiscal quarter of 2014 alone because of extreme weather conditions that are growing worse because of climate change. Oxfam projects that the price of key products like Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and General Mills’ Kix cereal could spike by up to 44% in the next 15 years because of climate change.
• Agriculture and forests drives around 25% of global GHG emissions and that these emissions are growing as demand for food rises. Experts say that if the world is to keep within a “safe” 2C threshold by 2050, net global emissions from the food sector needs to fall to zero and actually become a “carbon sink” by mid-century – working to remove GHGs from the atmosphere. Yet emissions trends are currently heading in the opposite direction.
• All of the ‘Big 10’ recognize the need to reduce indirect agricultural emissions within their supply chains and seven of them annually measure and report on these emissions through the Carbon Disclosure Project– but not Kellogg, General Mills or Associated British Foods. Only Unilever and Coca-Cola have committed to reduction targets that address emissions in their supply chains, but none of the ‘Big 10’ have committed to clear reduction targets specific to their agricultural emissions.
• None of the ‘Big 10’ require their suppliers to set targets to reduce emissions.
• All of the ‘Big 10’ have set targets to reduce emissions from their operations, but these are often not science-based and don’t reflect their full contribution to the problem.
• Several of the ‘Big 10’ companies have committed to ambitious timelines to end deforestation in their supply chains for palm oil but only Mars and Nestle extend these policies to other commodities that are drivers of deforestation and land use change.

Oxfam’s announcement of the report and a link to the full 30 page report and a summary are available at http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-05-20/big-ten-food-companies-emitting-as-much-worlds-25th-most-polluting-country

The World Nature Organization came into existence at the beginning of this month as a result of an international treaty, the WNO Treaty, coming into force. Under the Treaty the WNO shall promote sustainable development, information and knowledge transfer among states, organizations and the economic sector, as regards preserving the natural environment, environmentally-friendly technologies, green economies, renewable energies, protection of resources, protection of water, forest, air, oceans and climate, with due consideration of:

a) national and international priorities, as well as the advantages which result from sustainable development within the natural environment;

b) the contribution which is offered to the conservation of the environment by responsible conduct as regards natural resources, by the significant reduction in pollution of the earth, air and water, by the reduction in deforestation and by the effective reduction in desertification and loss of biological diversity;

c) the contribution to economic growth and social cohesion which can be offered by environmental and climate protection, including the alleviation of poverty and safeguarding conditions for the existence of these and future generations.

The WNO promotes sustainable development in support of the following UN declarations and treaties:

• United Nations Millennium Development Goals
• Kyoto Protocol
• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Agenda 21)
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
• World Summit Outcome (New York, 2005)

2) In the performance of its activities:

a) the organization shall act in accordance with the aims and principles of the United Nations for the promotion of peace and international cooperation;

b) the organization shall use its assets in such a way that their economic application to this end is secured, that all its aims can be pursued appropriately and its activities can be carried out, to achieve the greatest possible benefit for its members and in all parts of the world, taking account of the particular needs of the emerging nations and remote and isolated regions and islands;

c) the organization shall work closely with existing establishments and organizations and shall endeavor to bring about mutually beneficial relationships , in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort;

d) the organization shall pay heed to the resources and current measures of governments and of other organizations; and

e) shall inform its members about its activity in the form of an annual Activity Report and shall inform them about cooperation between the members and other organizations.

The organization is temporarily based in Liechtenstein and its first Secretary-General is Count Oliver of Wurmbrand-Stuppach.  The WNO has declared it as its task, to protect climate, air, water, earth and biological diversity and to still support economic development, which is in the interest of every country. Nevertheless, the WNO is anxious to promote a transition to environmentally friendly, low-carbon and resource-efficient, greener economies.

The WNO is currently preparing for the first World Nature Conference, joined by government representatives, scientists and experts of industrial and developing countries. The following lectures and presentations are planned at the two-day conference:

• the consequences and impact of climatic change on economy, politics and society;
• renewable energy, environment protections and climate policy;
• environmental protection through innovation: renewable energy, biodiversity and sustainable development.

It is not known whether Canada plans to join the WNO.

Lots more information about the WNO is available at http://www.wno.org

The current issue of Maclean’s magazine includes a list of what Maclean’s calls Canada’s Green 30, implying that these are, or are at least among, the greenest companies in Canada. A quick glance at the list left GallonDaily wondering how this very strange list had been compiled. Most notably, there is not a single Canadian manufacturer or energy company on the list nor is there a single company that supplies or operates green technology. There are seven financial service companies and four insurance companies. Almost all of the remaining 19 companies are in a service business: recruitment, marketing, retirement residences, equipment leasing, corporate recognition, management consulting, general contracting, legal services, and so on. In other words, companies that have almost all of their operations inside one or more offices.

Gallondaily is not at all down on office-based companies. After all, GallonDaily is published out of an office, and we certainly encourage office-based companies to do everything possible to increase their level of social responsibility and to lower their environmental footprint. However, the kind of initiatives listed in the Maclean’s article fall far short of being the leading business environmental initiatives in Canada. Maclean’s gives credit to the Green 30 companies for the following initiatives, among quite a few others that are similar:

• conducting Skype interviews with candidates to avoid transportation costs
• electronic documents has eliminated more than 50 per cent of print versions
• standardized printing has saved the equivalent of 40 trees and nearly 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity last year
• recycling and take-back programs provide customers with no-cost ways to manage their electronic waste
• volunteer day off included cleaning up the nearby Lake Ontario shoreline
• office bicycles let staff run errands without the hassle of driving a car
• recycling centres on each floor
• energy consumption has been cut with the help of sensor light switches, low-flow toilets and efficient light bulbs
• so employees don’t have to drive off-site for food, headquarters has free coffee machines and a café serving breakfast and lunch
• offices are close to public transit, and provide lockers and showers for cyclists
• every Earth Day, the firm schedules a general office cleanup, complete with big recycling bins and environmentally friendly cleaning supplies
• a goal in 2013 of eliminating two-thirds of business travel in five years
• promotes responsible investing by encouraging businesses to disclose statistics on carbon emissions and water management

All of these are positive initiatives but not one of them is ground-breaking, not one of them, or even two or three of them, qualifies a company to be a leading edge green company, and there are hundreds of Canadian companies undertaking similar, if not more and better, initiatives.

Maclean’s does not provide any information on the criteria for a company being included on the Green 30 list except that it is “a collection of Canadian businesses whose employees, according to consulting firm Aon Hewitt, are most positive about their record of environmental stewardship”. Information on how companies were evaluated for inclusion in the Green 30 list is not included in the Maclean’s article nor could we find it on the Aon Hewitt website, though Aon Hewitt does say that the starting point was the Best Employers in Canada and Best Small and Medium Employers in Canada 2014 studies.

If the Maclean’s Green 30 list inspires a few more Canadian companies to take the small green steps that those on the list have taken, then GallonDaily is all for it. But if one of the companies on the Green 30 list starts promoting its inclusion on the list, the it is time to call the list the farce that it is. If Maclean’s wants to repeat the Green 30 list in 2015 it should provide transparent green criteria that go beyond employee opinions (after all, few employees of any ‘best employer’ company are likely to say that their employer is an environmental pig) and a named independent judging panel of real sustainability experts.

The Maclean’s Green 30 article is available, likely for a limited time, at http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/green-where-it-counts-the-green-30/ 

Aon Hewitt describes itself as a company which “empowers organizations and individuals to secure a better future through innovative talent, retirement and health solutions. We advise, design and execute a wide range of solutions that enable clients
to cultivate talent to drive organizational and personal performance and growth, navigate retirement risk while providing new levels of financial security, and redefine health solutions for greater choice, affordability and wellness.” Its news release about the study is at http://www.aon.ca/surveys/BES/Green30-2014.pdf

Aon’s sustainability reporting appears to be a one page statement at http://www.aon.com/about-aon/corporate-citizenship/sustainability.jsp. There are no annual sustainability reports and no measured sustainability progress indicators in the Company’s investor relations web site. If the one page statement is all there is, then Aon still has as long a way to go to becoming an expert corporate sustainability practitioner.

Yesterday a prominent business litigation lawyer told a transportation conference at McMaster University in Hamilton that she thinks that rail transportation of crude oil is safe. A US communications ngo with sustainable agriculture expertise claims that sustainable agriculture is agriculture that does not harm the environment. This week Maclean’s has published a list called the Green 30 (see GallonDaily later this week for our comments on the list).

The problem with these claims, and with thousands more made in the media, in articles and advertising, and on product labels every week, is that they are presented as absolutes. Rail transportation of crude oil is clearly not safe, sustainable agriculture inevitable causes some harm to the environment, as does every human activity, and even the top companies on the Green 30 list are less than absolutely green, even when we take into account that the term ‘green’ is less than perfectly defined.

These statements are presented as absolutes when they should be presented as relatives. It is not unreasonable to suggest that rail transport of crude oil is safer than other ways of transporting crude oil (though GallonDaily would suggest that such an opinion may still be wrong). It is even more reasonable to suggest that sustainable agriculture has a lower environmental footprint than conventional agriculture, though GallonDaily suggests that sustainable agriculture, another poorly defined term, may not be as sustainable as organic agriculture, a practice which it apparently encompasses but also exceeds.

One might expect that a lawyer would understand the risk of absolutes. Given the number of recent train wrecks involving crude oil, how can a respected lawyer possibly make a public statement that rail transportation of oil is safe. A lawyer can hold whatever opinions she wishes but when speaking from a public platform she is using her professional qualification as a credential. Surely the Law Society should view this as a misconduct? Had she stated that in her opinion transportation of oil by rail is safe enough or safer or, even more preferred, poses less risk than other modes of transportation, and had she been willing to present evidence and been prepared to support public participation in a debate about the relative safety of oil transportation modes, because one part of risk assessment must involve public perception of risk, then the statement would have been defensible. But to state that transportation of oil by rail is safe is nothing short of a lie and a disrespect to the people of Lac-Mégantic and other communities that have been seriously harmed by crude oil train wrecks.

An ngo that claims expertise in sustainable agriculture should at least understand that all agriculture has an environmental footprint. Sustainable may involve minimizing that footprint but the human presence at least since the stone age almost inevitably has a deleterious impact on global ecosystems. We support sustainable agriculture not because it has zero environmental impact but because it is a stepping stone towards more sustainable food production systems. Watch for more information on bioeconomies in the next issue of Gallon Environmental Letter, due in your email box before the weekend.

The above is a GallonDaily opinion. For information on subscribing to Gallon Environment Letter, including a last chance to subscribe to the free edition, visit http://www.cialgroup.com/gallonletter.html

Media in both Canada and the US have made much of the fact that President Obama visited a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, to make a series of announcements forming part of his administration’s climate change strategy. Much of the coverage seemed to imply criticism of his choice of Walmart for the announcement while ignoring details of the content of the announcement.

As all readers will be aware, Obama has understandably concluded that the chance of getting climate legislation through Congress in this session is essentially zero. His plans therefore focus on initiatives that he can implement by Administrative Order. Key elements of the new announcement include:

• To enable a skilled workforce to support the growth of solar deployment across America, the DOE’s Solar Instructor Training Network will support training programs at community colleges across the country that will assist 50,000 workers to enter the solar industry by 2020.
• Building on the success of the Defense Department’s coordinated efforts to purchase renewables – and leverage its buying power to deploy clean energy technologies like solar – the General Services Administration is identifying opportunities for potential Federal Aggregated Solar Procurements in both the National Capital Region and Northern California.
• The Treasury Department and IRS will shortly clarify how certain investment rules relate to renewable energy installations. This is important because real estate investment trusts (REITs), a key component of many retail investors’ portfolios, generally hold only real property. The new guidance will provide clarity regarding the treatment of renewable energy installations in REITs, thereby helping to promote investment in the sector.
• An additional $2 billion goal in federal energy efficiency upgrades to Federal buildings over the next 3 years.
• A High Performance Outdoor Lighting Accelerator to increase the adoption and use of high efficiency outdoor lighting in the public sector. This Accelerator is aimed at replacing more than 500,000 outdoor lighting poles and developing best practice approaches to municipal system-wide upgrades.
• Two final energy efficiency conservation standards: one for electric motors, which are frequently used to power devices such as conveyor belts and escalators, another standard for walk-in coolers and freezers, such as those used to display milk in supermarkets.
• Preliminary affirmation that industry’s latest commercial building energy code – the 2013 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 – will provide an additional 8.5 percent energy savings over the previous Standard, and up to 30 percent savings compared to today’s predominant state energy codes.
• Fannie Mae and HUD/The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will be expanding the Green Preservation Plus program, an enhanced financing option aimed at preserving quality affordable housing by encouraging the investment in energy- and water-saving property improvements.

The President’s announcement also reported renewable energy and energy and efficiency commitments from several dozen private sector leaders in housing, homebuilding, commercial and industrial sectors. The complete announcement is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/09/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-commitments-and-executive-actions-a

The International Energy Agency, an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries including Canada and the USA, has published a report Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 which seeks to chart a course by which policy and technology together become driving forces – rather than reactionary tools – in transforming the energy sector over the next 40 years. According to the report electricity is likely to be an increasingly important vector in energy systems of the future. The report looks at more than 500 technology options, exploring pathways to a sustainable energy future in which policy support and technology choices are driven by economics, energy security and environmental factors. Interestingly the low carbon option confirms that global population and economic growth can be decoupled from energy demand, even for oil. Among the findings:

• Solar, hydropower and onshore wind are presently forging ahead, while development is mixed for other clean energy supply.
• Emerging economies have stepped up their ambitions and become leaders in deploying low-carbon energy technologies.
• Continued increase in coal use counteracts emissions reduction from recent progress in the deployment of renewables, underlining the need to improve coal plant efficiency and scale up carbon capture and storage.
• Fossil fuel use decreases by 2050 in the 2DS (the low carbon scenario), but its share of primary energy supply remains above 40%, reflecting its particularly important role for use in industry, transport and electricity generation.
• Energy efficiency makes the largest contribution to global emissions reduction in the 2DS, but needs to be combined with other technologies to meet long term targets.
• Globally, growth in electricity demand is outpacing all other final energy carriers; this creates potential for radically transforming both energy supply and end use.
• The transition to electrification is not neutral: in fact, decarbonisation requires a massive reversal of recent trends that have shown continued reliance on unabated fossil fuels for generation.
• Impressive deployment of renewable technologies is beginning to shape a substantially different future in supply.
• Over the medium term, the 2DS sees strong interplay between variable renewables and the flexibility of natural gas to supply both base-load and balancing generation.
• Natural gas should be seen only as a bridge to cleaner energy technologies unless CCS is deployed.
• Decarbonising the electricity sector can deliver the spillover effect of reducing emissions from end-use sectors, without needing further end-use investments.
• Increased electrification of buildings through the deployment of heat pumps as part of a comprehensive approach to improving buildings energy efficiency can significantly displace natural gas demand.
• Electrification of transport, together with improved fuel economy, fuel switching and new vehicle technologies, substantially reduces transport sector oil use in the 2DS without considerably increasing overall electricity demand.
• The USD 44 trillion (real 2012 USD) additional investment needed to decarbonise the energy system in line with the 2DS by 2050 is more than offset by over USD 115 trillion in fuel savings – resulting in net savings of USD 71 trillion.
• Regulation and market transformation can help or hinder the potential of individual technologies, including their competitiveness.
• Without the stimulus of carbon pricing, alternative policy instruments will be necessary to trigger low-carbon investment in competitive markets.

The full 382 page report (PDF €120), a free 10 page Executive Summary and other associated documents are available at http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/may/name,51005,en.html 

Our parallel publication GallonLetter has previously expressed concern about the lack of quality control of drinking water projects in developing countries. Now a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal has echoed that concern.

Authors from The Water Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Southampton University, and the charity WaterAid UK, have reviewed the literature to determine whether water from “improved” sources is less likely to contain fecal contamination than “unimproved” sources and to assess the extent to which contamination varies by source type and setting. The “use of an improved source” terminology comes from the World Health Organization and UNICEF, both of which organizations use it as an indicator even though it does not take into account water quality measurements.

The study, which included data on 96,737 water samples taken from water projects in low and medium income countries, found that:

• the odds of contamination were considerably lower for “improved” sources than “unimproved” sources.
• however, over a quarter of samples from improved sources contained fecal contamination.
• water sources in low-income countries and rural areas were more likely to be contaminated.
• studies rarely reported stored water quality or sanitary risks and few achieved robust random selection.
• safety may be overestimated due to infrequent water sampling and deterioration in quality prior to consumption.

The study concluded that:

• access to an “improved source” (piped water into a dwelling, yard, or plot, or a standpipe, borehole, and protected dug well) provides a measure of sanitary protection but does not ensure water is free of fecal contamination nor is it consistent between source types or settings.
• international estimates greatly overstate use of safe drinking-water and do not fully reflect disparities in access.
• an enhanced monitoring strategy would combine indicators of sanitary protection with measures of water quality.

Many of these “improved” water projects have been completed by ngos, government and UN agencies, and others seeking to provide assistance to people in developing countries. But providing a developing country community with water from an “improved” source that is still harmful to human health because of the presence of bacterial contamination is, in GallonDaily’s opinion, unethical and should be criminal. The editors of the PLOS Medicine journal point out that  by equating “improved” with “safe,” the number of people with access to a safe water source has been greatly overstated, and suggests that a large number and proportion of the world’s population use unsafe water. This problem will not be solved by implementing more “improved” water projects that provide unsafe water. Millennium Development Goal target 7c aims to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking-water but progress towards that goal is almost certainly overstated because international agencies use the “improved” water source indicator rather than a “safe” drinking water source indicator.

Many individuals and organizations provide financial and other support to organizations committed to bringing drinking water to less developed countries. However, this study shows that digging wells, providing pumps, and “improving” water sources in other ways does not mean that the provided water is fit for human consumption or that the incidence of water-borne disease is reduced. Gallondaily urges those supporting providers of water to developing country communities to make sure that the organizations are testing the water to ensure that it is fit for human consumption. If not, transfer the support to an organization that behaves in a more responsible, and ethical, manner.

An abstract and the full article are available at http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001644

Yesterday morning GallonDaily’s editor received an unsolicited call from a company which claims to offer ‘promotional products from over 3000 suppliers’ and ‘exclusive to some of the finest around the world’. Your editor suggested that his company does not offer promotional products (pens, usb sticks, ballpark caps, etc) because they are generically not good for the environment and that, as an environmental organization, we decline to give away products which contribute to environmental harm.

The unsolicited salesman laughed and said that his company offers recycled plastic products, bamboo products, and many more which are good for the environment. Your editor responded that none of these products are ‘good’ for the environment and that we decline to give away stuff which the recipients probably do not need. Eventually, after much laughter on his part and a consistent message that he offers environmentally friendly products, we managed to persuade this persistent telephone salesman to go away.

The fact is that giving away junk products to people who do not need them can never be environmentally responsible. We do not totally blame this promotional products company for trying to sell its greener promotional products, though it was clear that this particular telephone salesperson had no environmental expertise whatsoever. We might take the position that if a company is going to give away promotional gifts then it is better that they be greener gifts than non-green gifts. However, the fact is that giving trivial giftware to people who neither want nor need it is an environmentally harmful activity and is a totally unnecessary contribution to generation of garbage.

GallonDaily has two proposals:

1) companies that claim to be environmentally and socially responsible should swear off the handing out of pens, caps, balls, t-shirts, or any other ‘promotional item’ that is unnecessary and most likely unneeded and unwanted by the recipient; and

2) that stewardship organizations across Canada should give priority to charging stewardship fees to companies which distribute these ‘promotional items’ for free handout to visitors to company offices, conferences, exhibitions, etc.

If companies wish to hand out ‘promotional items’ GallonDaily suggests that those items should be in the form of candies or other junk food items. At least then it is only the recipients or their families that are becoming unnecessarily fat, not Canada’s landfills 🙂

Avery Dennison, a $6.1 billion California-based global corporation known best for its self-adhesive labels, has been getting good environmental profiling around a $200,000 grant made to Rainforest Alliance for promotion of sustainable forestry in Honduras. The Chairman, President and CEO of Avery Dennison was interviewed by Rainforest Alliance about the company’s efforts to protect the environment and support local communities. Among his comments about Avery Dennison’s progress towards sustainability:

• We measure success by the social, environmental and economic value we create.
• Sustainability is the smart thing for us to do, as well as the right thing.
• You can’t run an enterprise for the long term if you aren’t doing it in a sustainable way.
• And it’s consistent with a basic economic truth: businesses are created to provide solutions for unmet needs.
• If we innovate to meet a societal need, all stakeholders will reap the benefits.
• Our sustainability goals have evolved from a set of initiatives to a core business strategy.
• We’re focused on using our scale and purchasing power to move the entire labeling and packaging industry to use more responsibly sourced materials.
• We’re in a unique position to bring together a full range of stakeholders to work on solutions that benefit everyone.
• In our manufacturing facilities, we’re driving efficiencies in energy, greenhouse gas emissions, materials and waste.
• One of our long term goals is to achieve zero waste to landfill from our manufacturing operations and address the downstream waste impacts associated with self-adhesive labeling materials.
• In 2013, we turned to the Rainforest Alliance to help us develop a responsible paper sourcing policy with the ultimate goal of sourcing all of our paper products sustainably without increasing our costs.
• A major hurdle in adopting a more sustainable supply chain is the industry’s mindset. There were two big myths about sustainability we had to overcome. The first is that it costs more. It’s just not true. In fact, there are sustainable solutions that we provide today to help make supply chains run more efficiently. The second myth is that it’s too hard. Of course, it takes planning and hard work, but the real challenge is doing things differently and thinking in new ways. Once you embrace that notion, it opens up new possibilities and opportunities for innovation.
• Manufacturing efficiently uses less material and creates less waste, reducing both costs and environmental impact. Using renewable resources, and finding lower-impact alternatives, can help ensure that we have future access to the materials from which we make our products. Employing people in fair, safe and ethical environments and offering them opportunities for training and advancement enhances their lives and communities — and helps them be more productive and creative on the job.

The complete interview is available at http://thefrogblog.org/2014/05/05/the-business-of-sustainable-forestry-a-conversation-with-avery-dennison-ceo-dean-a-scarborough/