A coffee farm in Costa Rica

Aside from being in the coffee trade, Starbucks and Thanksgiving Coffee would appear to have little in common.

Seattle-based Starbucks is a FORTUNE 500 company (2011 revenues: $11.7 billion) that sells its brews all over the world, pursues global dominance (its latest outpost is Helsinki) and owns an iconic  brand. The company bought about 428 million pounds of coffee last year.

Thanksgiving Coffee is a family-owned, artisan roaster that sells most of its coffee to grocers, specialty stores and restaurants near its home base in Mendocino County, CA, where the other popular crop is often smoked. Thanksgiving bought about 500,000 pounds of coffee last year.

Yet the big coffee company and the little one share a couple of important goals.

First, they want to win the trust of their customers and, of course, their own employees. One way to do that is by showing them that their coffee is ethically-sourced. Starbucks talks about responsibly grown coffee, citing its Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices, a set of social, economic, environmental and quality guidelines. Thanksgiving’s slogan is ““Not Just a Cup, but a Just Cup.”  Reputation matters, whether you are big or small.

But, even if reputation didn’t matter (and to most customers, it probably doesn’t), Starbucks and Thanksgiving need to devote their attention to the social and environmental practices of their growers, upon whom they depend for a reliable supply of high-quality coffee. If their coffee farmers run into trouble–because of low coffee prices, poor environmental practices or climate change–Starbucks and Thanksgiving will struggle, too.

The other day, I wrote about the Fair Trade movement and its efforts to improve the lives of coffee growers. (See my blogpost, A Schism over Fair Trade.) About 9 percent of the coffee sold by Starbucks in the US is certified as Fair Trade; about 75%  of Thanksgiving’s coffee is Fair Trade certified. Today, I’ll dig a bit deeper into the ways Starbucks and Thanksgiving work with growers. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 1 comment }

Paul Rice is a man on a mission.

The 51-year-old president and CEO of Fair Trade USA, who has led the group since 1998, says he wants the practice of Fair Trade to become bigger, engaging more consumers and helping more farmers around the world. To that end, Fair Trade USA last year quit the international Fairtrade Labelling Organizations, or FLO, an international federation of fair trade groups, to pursue a vision that Rice calls “Fair Trade for All.”  He and his allies want to broaden the definition of Fair Trade, which when it comes to coffee now requires importers to buy from grower-owned co-operatives. The “Fair Trade for All”  permits buying from collections of small farmers and even coffee estates, or plantations, that are deemed to be worker-friendly.

“Fair Trade can be more than a tiny market niche,” Rice says. “It can be scalable and significant.”

Bringing in plantations will make it easier for big coffee buyers like Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Starbucks and Whole Foods to buy more Fair Trade products–and that’s exactly the problem, his critics say.

Including bigger farms, they argue, will endanger the co-ops that are the heart and soul of the Fair Trade movement.

“Fair Trade is designed to change commerce,” says Rodney North of Equal Exchange, a cooperative that sells Fair Trade and organic coffee, tea, chocolate bars, cocoa, bananas and almonds.  “We shouldn’t be changing Fair Trade to accommodate commerce.” [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 13 comments }

Yields from organic farming may not match those produced by farmers who use synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but there are other good reasons to buy and support organic–its health benefits, the good that it does for farm workers, even its animal-welfare rules.

So, at least, say executives of the Organic Trade Association, a Washington-based group that represents about 6,500 organic farmers, producers, retailers and suppliers.

“Yield is only one window into organic farming,” says Laura Batcha, executive vice president of the trade group. Organic farming is “good for the environment. It’s good for local economies. It’s good for the farmer incomes.”A 2008 USDA survey of organic production found that organic farms had average annual sales of $217,675, compared to the $134,807 average for U.S. farms overall. Overall, the US organic industry, including fiber as well as food, generated about $31 billion in 2011, up from just $1 billion in 1990. Despite the US’s sluggish economy, organic food and farming remain growth businesses.

I went to see Laura and Christine Bushway, who is CEO of the organic trade group, at their offices on Capitol Hill to talk about several issues, including the push to require labels on food containing genetically-modified organisms, the Farm Bill and food safety, including a recent incident of mad cow disease in California. But we talked a lot about yields because it’s in the news: A recent survey of 66 research studies published in Nature, which found that organic yields lag those of conventional farming, has stirred up a bit of a brouhaha. [See my blogpost Organic food is not as green as you think, and the comments.]

Yield is an environmental issue, of course. As demand for food increases on a planet with limited resources, we’ll want to use of land, water and other inputs efficently. But, as Laura Batcha notes, maximizing yield is not the only way to feed today’s global population of 7 billion, which is expected to grow to 9 billion. “Poverty drives hunger. War drives poverty,” she said. “It’s a lot more complicated that bushels per acre out of Iowa.” We can also eat lower on the food chain (more vegetables, less meat), reduce food waste, stop growing corn for ethanol, etc. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 5 comments }

 

To Hindus, cows are sacred. Jewish dietary laws (kashrut) and Muslim dietary laws (halal) prohibit pork consumption. Traditional Catholics abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Religion and food have forever been intertwined. Food is deep, emotional stuff.

So it’s perhaps not surprising that devotees of organic food often embrace with quasi-religious fervor the practice of growing food without synthetic fertilizer or pesticides. [See, for example, my blogpost about Maria Rodale.] But if we want to understand impact of organic agriculture on the planet and on our health, science and not faith ought to guide us.

New scientific research points to a key drawback of organic agriculture, unfortunately: It is typically less efficient and productive than conventional growing methods. That’s a problem for fans of organic because the world has a limited supply of farmland, a billion or so undernourished people, a growing population, an expanding middle class and therefore a vast appetite for affordable and nourishing food. If, in fact, organic methods are less productive, scaling up the production of organic food at will require more land, contribute to deforestation and cost more than growing our food using conventional methods. That suggests that organic methods alone can’t feed the world in a sustainable way. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 22 comments }

This month, just for fun, I’m doing to devote most of my writing to food and sustainability. My plan is to write about organic vs. conventional yields, a controversy around Fair Trade, the giant candy company Mars, clean cooking fuels in Mozambique and the goings-on at a pair of upcoming events where I’ll be moderating: the 2012 National Policy Conference of CropLife America, about “The Politics of Food and the 2012 Farm Bill,” and the always-fabulous Cooking for Solutions extravaganza at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Today, though, I want to tell you about a quirky, provocative and enjoyable book called An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies (Dutton, $26.95), by Tyler Cowen.

A free-market economist who teaches at George Mason University, Cowen writes for a broad audience. His blog, MarginalRevolution, is extremely popular. He contributes  to the Sunday NY Times business section. His interests are wide ranging (see this Grantland column on the end of football) and he seems to read every nonfiction book that matters.  His short ebook, The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better, is very smart, and a bargain at $3.99: It argues that what ails the US economy is not merely the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis or the distortions caused by the collapse of the dot-com bubble but a more fundamental slowdown in innovation that dates back for 40 years.

In An Economist Gets Lunch, Cowen muses about loosely-connected topics, ranging from how American food got bad (it’s not what you think) to the mysterious differences between Mexican food in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, its neighbor across the border (US regulators comes into to play) to what happened when he spent a month shopping at an Asian supermarket called Great Wall in Merrifield, VA (he ate healthier, fresher, cheaper foods).

Tyler Cowen

If, like me, you’re interested in the social and environmental impact of the food, you’ll want to read Cowen’s defense of agribusiness, technology and global supply chains. He rejects the argument summed up by the title of the movie Food Inc. that American food is bad for us and bad for the planet because of the commercialization of food. While Cowen is no fan of donuts or McDonald’s, he notes that by the end of the 20th century “more people ate well than ever before” and “the American poor are more likely to be obese than starving.” He writes:

Cheap, quick food–including its embodiment through our sometimes obnoxious agribusiness corporations–is the single most important advance in human history. It is the foundation of modern civilization, and the reason why most of us are alive.

The reasons why American food isn’t very good, he says, have less to do with business than with us, i.e., our government and culture. Prohibition all but killed fine dining because restaurants make more money from liquor than from food. Anti-immigration policies “kept American food away from its best and most fruitful innovators for decades.” Because “Americans spoil and cater to their children,” he argues, we grow up eating food that is “blander, simpler and sweeter” than food elsewhere:

[click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 7 comments }

Like politics, poverty alleviation makes strange bedfellows. CARE is one of the world’s largest humanitarian organizations, formed in the aftermath of World War II to deliver relief to a battered Europe.  (CARE then stood for Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe. Who knew?) Mennonites are a Christian, but neither Catholic nor Protestant, faith organization with a strong tradition of pacifism and service. Together, they stand behind a for-profit company called MicroVest — whose purpose is to help build capital markets serving the global poor, and whose investors include J.P. Morgan Chase and Prudential Insurance.

Strange bedfellows, indeed–and that’s no accident, as Gil Crawford, the CEO of MicroVest, told me when we met recently.

MicroVest, he told me, reflects a belief that we no longer live in a binary world, one that’s divided between amoral profit-maximizing companies and pure-of-heart nonprofits aimed at doing good.

“Our core premise is that doesn’t work,” Crawford said.

Instead, MicroVest raises money from institutional investors, mostly here in the US, then makes loans or equity investments in microfinance institutions around the world that lend money to the poor. This activity is designed to generates positive financial returns for everyone along the line–the US investor, MicroVest, the local lender and the ultimate borrow. It’s using the power of business to fight poverty. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 3 comments }

Imagine a company that says it can produce virtually limitless amounts of cheap gasoline, create arable land for food production and solve the climate crisis–all at once.

That’s the promise of CoolPlanet BioFuels.

Mike Cheiky

Mike Cheiky, the company’s founder and CEO, spoke about CoolPlanet’s “negative emissions technology” at Brainstorm Green, FORTUNE’s conference about business and the environment. Yes, negative emissions.

Does that mean, I asked him, that the more you drive a car powered by CoolPlanet’s biofuels, the more CO2 will be pulled out of the air? Yes, he replied.

“The world doesn’t have too much carbon,” Cheiky explained. The problem’s is that the carbon’s in the wrong place. There’s too much in the atmosphere, causing global warming,  and not enough in the soil. Essentially, Cool Planet has a plan to use plants to remove it from the air and then restore it to the land.

Before you decide that this is too good to be true, you should know that Cheiky, a veteran entrepreneur, has persuaded Google, General Electric, BP, ConocoPhillips, NRG Energy, Exelon and venture capital firms Shea Ventures and North Bridge Venture Partners to invest millions of dollars–he won’t say how many millions–in CoolPlanet Biofuels.

“We have been poked and prodded so many ways by so many people,” Cheiky told me. “GE sent 17 people to do their due diligence at a time when we had only 15 employees.”

These investors wrote him checks, he added, because of his track record. “I’ve done six start-ups in my career,” he went on, “and I’ve never had a down round. They’ve all been very successful.” [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 1 comment }

Since launching its ambitious Sustainable Living Plan in 2010, Unilever is buying more sustainable palm oil and cage-free eggs, putting less salt and fat in its tomato sauces and spreads, selling water purifiers to poor people in the global south and rolling out climate-friendly freezers for its ice cream.

No big company is doing more to limit its environmental footprint, while improving health and well being and growing its business. Unilever’s commitments are wide and deep. It’s no wonder that the firm and its CEO, Paul Polman, have become darlings not just of corporate-friendly NGOs like WWF, but also a favorite of  hard-charging activists from Greenpeace and the Humane Society of the US.

But even as Unilever today [Tuesday, April 26] reported making good progress towards its sustainability goals, questions remain about its strategy: Will consumers–and investors–notice and reward Unilever for its efforts?

It’s obviously too soon to say whether sustainability will drive growth at Unilever, but the early evidence appears mixed. Eco-efficiency efforts in factories have reduced waste and saved money. Unilever revenues have grown nicely, to $46.5 billion in 2011, up $44.2 B in 2010 and $39.8 B in 2009. But the company’s share price is up by less than 2% in the last year in the US market, slightly trailing the S&P500. (It’s doing better in European markets where currency factors don’t come into play.) Meantime, Unilever’s corporate identity is all but hidden behind consumers brands like Lipton, Skippy, Ragu, Bertolli, Hellmann’s, Suave, Dove, Ben & Jerry’s and Breyers, at least here in the US. That makes it hard to win over those consumers who care about companies that do good.

Today, I attended a Washington event with company execs, partners and NGOs where Unilever’s president for North America, Kees Kruythoff, released a progress report on the company’s sustainability efforts. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 1 comment }

It’s no surprise that many runners care about the environment. We depend on the outdoors to enjoy our sport, and most of us love to run in beautiful places.

But, unlike so many other cause-oriented nonprofits or charities–think of the Race for the Cure or Run MS–environmental groups have been slow to take advantage of the opportunity to connect the work they do to the running world.

The Nature Conservancy is trying to change that, which is how I found myself at the start of the GW Parkway Classic 10-mile race, which goes from Mount Vernon to downtown Alexandria, on Earth Day, a drizzly Sunday morning. Here in the capital region, and elsewhere around the world, Nature Conservancy chapters have organized Team Nature (“Healthy You, Healthy Planet’) to encourage people to get outside and run, and to raise money for the conservancy’s work.

When I had the opportunity to join Team Nature for today’s race–thanks to Mark Tercek, the Nature Conservancy’s CEO, and Kate Hougan, the regional marketing director–I was delighted to do so. TNC does important work, including efforts to protect and restore Chesapeake Bay, which I heard about today from Mark Bryer, who also ran the race. Plus I knew Scott Jurek would be there.

I’m too old for heroes, especially sports heroes, but I am a huge admirer of Scott, who I met recently for the first time. In a terrific book about running called Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen (which set off the minimalist running craze, a topic for another day), author Christopher  McDougall writes:

Scott was the top ultrarunner in the country, maybe in the world, arguably of all time.

Scott, who is 38, is a seven-time winner of the  Western States 100-mile endurance run, a trek through the remote and rugged Sierra Nevada mountains, and he set a course record the first time he ran the Badwater Ultramarathon, a grueling 135-mile run through Death Valley where temperatures routinely top 120 degrees. [click to continue…]

Print Friendly

{ 0 comments }

CEOs like Alan Mulally of Ford and Lew Hay of Next Era made headlines at FORTUNE’s Brainstorm Green last week, but some of the most interesting ideas came from the NGOs, academics, writers and sustainability consultants at the conference.

One of my favorites is L. Hunter Lovins, a Colorado cowgirl (with medals to prove it) who’s been a leader of the sustainability movement for decades. Hunter is the co-author (with Paul Hawken and her ex-husband Amory Lovins) of Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, a groundbreaking and influential book, maybe the most important ever written about “green” business. More recently, she wrote (with Boyd Cohen) an excellent book called Climate Capitalism that has been given a new title, which sounds more like Hunter, for the upcoming paperback: The Way Out: Kickstarting Capitalism to Save Our Economic Ass.

Nick Aster of Triple Pundit interviewed Hunter at Brainstorm Green, and she talked about how the sustainability movement is doing (not bad, but it’s mostly been about incremental movement) and why more radical change is needed companies (to save ecosystems that are required for life, to stop from overheating the planet). “All of the good work that’s being talked about at this conference isn’t enough,” she says. Companies need to rediscover their purpose to thrive, she argues. It’s worth taking 10 minutes to hear what she has to say about Unilever, Puma, the importance of bees and a new group of business advocates and advisers called The Blue Earth Network:

Print Friendly

{ 0 comments }

Coupons
Coupon Forum
Trompi.ro