Patagonia’s CEO, marching for climate action

6a00d8341d07fd53ef01b7c6e24a7d970b-500wiRecently, I had lunch with Mary Wenzel, a senior vice president at Wells Fargo who directs the bank’s environmental projects. The bank’s efforts are laudable–it intends to provide $30 billion of financing by 2020 to business opportunities that protect the environment, it’s making its offices more efficient, it’s a big-time supporter of a nonprofit called Grid Alternatives that delivers solar power to low-income people, etc. But when I asked Mary whether Wells Fargo has declared itself to be in favor of  a carbon tax or a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, she told me that, no, that’s a step the bank has not yet been willing to take.

In that regard, Wells Fargo is typical of most big companies in the US. None of the big Wall Street banks–Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase or Citi–has taken a strong political position on the climate issue, as best as I can tell. And although a dozen or so big companies, including an oil company (Shell), utilities (NRG Energy, Duke Energy) and GE joined together back in 2008 to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership to call for regulation of greenhouse gases, their efforts are now dormant.

With the exception of the work being done by the BICEP group around its Climate Declaration (weakly-worded as it is), America’s corporate leaders have largely been missing in action when it comes to the climate issue.

I thought about all that when I heard today that Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, is closing its New York stores this Sunday until 3 p.m. so that its employees can join the People’s Climate March. Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s CEO, will join the march. Patagonia has also taken out a full-page ad in today’s New York Times about the march.

In a blog post, Marcario writes about her great-grandfather, an immigrant laborer who with others worked to build on the city’s streets because “they wanted to create a better future for their children and grandchildren.” That’s what this march is about, she writes:

It is the work of this generation to make clear we reject the status quo—a race toward the destruction of our planet and the wild places we play in and love. We cannot sit idly by while large special interests destroy the planet for profit without regard for our children and grandchildren.

We have to keep the pressure on. That means being loud and visible in the streets, in town halls and our capitals, and most important, in our elections—voting for candidates who understand we are facing a climate crisis.

Meantime, Patagonia has launched a crowd-sourced art campaign called Vote the Environment that is designed to inspire voters – especially young people – to support candidates who will act on behalf of the future and the climate in the upcoming midterm election.

Now–I understand that Patagonia is a private company, and a relatively small one, that markets itself to consumers who love the outdoors. It’s a low-risk proposition for Patagonia and Marcario to join a climate march. Cynics will suspect that Patagonia is inviting marchers to gather in its Central Park West store for coffee and bagels on Sunday morning in the hope that they will come back later to buy its pricey gear.

But, even acknowledging that Patagonia is sui generis, I’m struck by the fact that the distance between Patagonia (and a handful of other forward-thinking companies) and mainstream corporate America is so vast. Imagine the CEOs of the big banks or GE or Walmart marching for climate action. It’s inconceivable.

What is conceivable — and what’s fair — is to ask those CEOs to follow the lead of Rose Marcario and a handful of other business leaders (like the Risky Business trio of Hank Paulsen, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer)  by engaging, in a serious way, in the climate debate. That means putting climate regulation at the top of their companies’ Washington agendas, and refusing to support political candidates who don’t have a plan to deal with the climate crisis. If not now, when?

Duck duck goose: How to stop their abuse

e38443ba-d070-4e4b-a7ed-f94ecfbcfc00-460x276I’ve worn down jackets over the years, but never given much thought to where the down came from, or how it was harvested, if that’s the right word. Down, it turns out, is a byproduct of the meat industry. Feathers from ducks and geese that are raised for meat, mostly in eastern Europe and China, are collected, cleaned and processed into down, which is then supplied to the factories that manufacture garments that are insulated with down.

Unfortunately, some of those ducks and geese are treated cruelly, practices that have been documented by animal-welfare groups such as Four Paws, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States. Some of the waterfowl are “live plucked,” meaning their feathers are pulled out when they are still alive, which is said to be very painful. Others are force-fed in order to produce foie gras.

The abuse is unnecessary. The alternative is simply to collect the feathers after the ducks or geese are killed in slaughterhouses–assuring, in the meantime, that they were not force-fed or live-plucked beforehand.

Under pressure from the animal-welfare groups, Patagonia and The North Face over the past few years have independently developed standards for responsible down production. Both companies deserve credit for doing so, but Patagonia’s standard is stronger and more comprehensive–and the people at Patagonia worry that the more lenient standard written by North Face will become the industry norm.

I took a look at the issue in a story for Guardian Sustainable Business. Here’s the lowdown on down:

For decades, The North Face and Patagonia have competed in the marketplace for outerwear, backpacks and pullovers. Now they’re engaged in a smackdown over down – specifically over which company has put forward the strongest standards to protect ducks and geese, whose feathers are made into down insulation, from cruel practices on farms and in slaughterhouses.

This month, The North Face announced that it would begin selling down next year that complies with its Responsible Down Standard (RDS), which it describes as “the broadest and most comprehensive approach to animal welfare available in the down supply chain”. Patagonia says that’s simply not so, and that its own Traceable Down Standard provides “the highest assurance of animal welfare in the apparel industry”.

Four Paws, an independent animal-welfare group that advocates for the ethical treatment of, agrees that Patagonia’s standard is superior. While The North Face standard is “a step in the right direction”, Patagonia has “a lower tolerance for a set of things that we think are important for animal welfare”, says Nina Jamal, an international farm animal campaigner for Four Paws, which is based in Vienna.

The fact that these two longtime rivals are competing over corporate responsibility should come as no surprise. Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, a celebrated rock climber, fly fisherman, environmentalist and author, has made his company a sustainability pioneer. And after Doug Tompkins, The North Face’s founder, left the company decades ago, he went on to acquire vast amounts of wilderness for conservation in Chile and Argentina and publish a book assailing factory farms. In 1968, Chouinard and Tompkins, who were then pals, took a celebrated road trip to Patagonia.

The issue of competing standards isn’t limited to the down industry, of course. There are competing standards for forest products, Fair Trade, green buildings and sustainable tourism, just to pick a few examples. Ordinarily, competitive markets product benefits for consumers, but they may not be the case in the “market” for standards, where the risk is that a proliferation of labels will confuse consumers and permit companies to shop around for the weakest standard.

I don’t think that’s a concern here, though, because people at The North Face and at the Textile Exchange, a nonprofit that is making The North Face’s Responsible Down Standard widely available, tell me they plan to strengthen their standard. Let’s hope they deliver on that promise–there’s no need for waterfowl to suffer in order to keep people warm.

Sustainability at McDonald’s. Really.

coffee-cupHere’s a question. Which trio of companies has done more for the environment…

Patagonia, Starbucks and Chipotle?

Or Walmart, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s?

I don’t have an answer. Patagonia, Starbucks and Chipotle have been path-breaking companies when it comes to sustainability, but Walmart, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s are so much bigger that, despite their glaring flaws, and the fundamental problems with their business models, they will have a greater impact as they get serious about curbing their environmental footprint, and that of their suppliers.

Small and mid-sized companies create sustainability solutions, as a rule, but the impact comes when big global corporations embrace them. Size matters.

All that is by way of introduction to my latest story for Guardian Sustainable Business, about McDonald’s coffee-buying practices and the role of the consumer in driving them to scale.

Here’s how it begins:

Across the US, McDonald’s last week introduced pumpkin spice lattes made with Rainforest Alliance-certified espresso. No such assurance comes with McDonald’s drip coffee. Why? Because consumers haven’t yet shown Mickey D’s that they care.

That’s gradually changing, says Bob Langert, the vice president of sustainability for McDonald’s, and not a moment too soon. As the world’s biggest fast-food chain, which has 34,000 restaurants in 118 countries, seeks to make its supply chain more environmentally friendly, McDonald’s is trying to enlist its customers as allies.

That’s why the pumpkin lattes marketing features the little green frog seal of approval from the Rainforest Alliance. That’s also why McDonald’s fish sandwiches, for the first time, feature a blue ecolabel from the Marine Stewardship Council certifying that the pollock inside comes from better-managed fisheries.

By talking to consumers about its sustainability efforts, McDonald’s hopes to build brand trust and loyalty. Until recently, people had to dig into the company’s website to learn about its environmental performance.

“We’ve had sustainable fish for many years, but we didn’t tell people about it,” Langert told me during lunch in Washington DC. (He ordered fish.) “We feel there’s a tipping point coming. We see the consumer starting to care. Consumer expectations are rising.”

What McDonald’s is doing with its coffee isn’t innovative. Starbucks paved the way. But if McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Costco, Target and others follow, the world’s coffee farmers will be a lot better off.

Meantime, McDonald’s is leading the way as it encourages potato farmers to use fewer pesticides and less fertilizer, as the story goes on to say. And it could potentially have a huge impact as it tackles its most important supply chain–beef.

Elitists will scoff at everything McDonald’s does, of course, and some of their criticisms have merit. A Big Mac, it’s safe to assume, has a big carbon footprint. Eating too much food from Mickey D’s (or anywhere else) makes people fat. I’d like to see fast-food chains pay their workers better, even if that means customers will have to pay more for breakfast or lunch. But on the environment, McDonald’s is moving in the right direction. Just as important, the company is trying to move its customers along, too.

You can read the rest of my Guardian story here.

My beef with B Corps

logoThere’s lot to like about the fast-growing B Corps movement, and one thing to dislike, as I explain in my latest column for Guardian Sustainable Business US.

If you’re reading this blog, you are probably aware of B Corps. The idea takes a bit of explaining. B Corps are businesses that are certified by a nonprofit organization called B Lab to meet what its backers call “rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.” These businesses win certification much in the way that buildings are certified to have meet LEED environmental standards by the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council; they have to complete an assessment of their performance, provide documentation and be open a review from B Lab, as the group explains here.

But the term B Corps is also used to describe “benefit corporations,” a corporate legal structure that has been set up by legislation that has now been passed by 20 states, including, most recently, Delaware. Benefit corporations need not be certified by B Lab, although many are.

It’s unavoidably confusing, but my beef with B Corps is simple.

The voluntary certification system makes sense to me, for reasons that I explain in the story–it’s a way to signal employees, customers and investors that a B Corps aims to do better than conventional companies. Most B Corps are small and privately held. Among the best known are Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s, which is a unit of a conventional C Corps, Unilever.

The legal “benefit corporation” purportedly gives companies more freedom to serve society as a whole than conventional corporations have. I’m skeptical about this claim, to say the least, and I worry that it could be counterproductive–because it implies that conventional companies, which make up the bulk of the global economy, need to pursue profits, at the expense of broader social and environmental goals. This seems wrong on the face of it. After all, if Ben & Jerry’s can be certified as a “good” B Corps, doesn’t that mean that its parent company, Unilever, can be “good” too?

My worry is that the implicit argument — that most of the world’s companies don’t have the freedom to do the right thing for society — undermines faith in capitalism (which is fragile, at best, for good reason) and that it discourage reformers inside and outside of big companies who are pushing corporate America to do business better. It’s a bit smug to suggest that traditional companies can’t do as much good for the world as B Corps can.

Here’s how my story begins:

To the supporters of B Corps – benefit corporations that say they aim to serve workers, communities and the environment, as well as their owners – 1 August 2013 was an historic day. In what B Corps described as “a seismic shift in corporate law,” the state of Delaware, where one million businesses are legally registered, enacted legislation that will “redefine success in business” by giving the owners and managers of legally recognised B Corps protection as they pursue “a higher purpose than profit.”

The B Corps movement has much to be proud of: it has built a brand that stands for good business, attracted hundreds of committed followers and sparked debate about the role of business in society. But claims – sometimes made explicitly, sometimes implicitly – that B Corps have more freedom to take an expansive view of their social and environmental responsibilities is not only mistaken, but potentially damaging to the cause of sustainable business.

After all, if conventional companies have no choice but to focus narrowly on maximising short-term profits, at the expense of workers, communities and the planet, then we’re in a heap of trouble and unlikely to get out, because 99% of US businesses today are conventional C Corps, and most are likely to remain so.

You can read the rest here.

Fortune Brainstorm Green, and the limits of corporate sustainability

Harrison Ford at Fortune Brainstorm Green

Harrison Ford at Fortune Brainstorm Green

The 2013 edition of Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference was, by most accounts, a hit. We had a record number of attendees, including more than 50 CEOs of companies and nonprofits, big and small; plenty of entertaining and informative conversation; and a healthy dose of fun, with celebs like Harrison Ford, will.i.am and (my favorite) ultra marathon runner Scott Jurek. As co-chair of the event since the first Brainstorm Green in 2008, I love to reconnect with colleagues and sources, meet new folks and learn from and, occasionally, by inspired by our top-notch speakers. The theme of the conference has been a constant: How can business profitably help solve the world’s most important environmental problems?

Unavoidably, the challenge of an event like Brainstorm Green (as well as a conundrum for anyone who writes about corporate sustainability) turns on the question of how much to cheer or jeer the efforts of companies that are trying to “go green.” My job, as I see it, is to do both–to applaud the leaders, to prod the laggards, and to do my best to tell one from the other. That’s difficult balance to do in a conference setting where the mood is one of bonhomie, where the speakers are our “guests,” and where the presumption is that everyone is doing the best they can. The trouble is, that’s usually not good enough.

Mark Tercek at Brainstorm Green

Mark Tercek at Brainstorm Green

As Mark Tercek, the CEO of The Nature Conservancy, who I interviewed at Brainstorm Green, put it in his excellent new book, Nature’s Fortune:

Nearly every precious bit of nature–teeming coral reefs, sweeping grasslands, lush forests, the rich diversity of life istelf–is in decline. Everything humanity should reduce–suburban sprawl, deforestation, overfishing, carbon emissions–has increased.

Sad but true.

So if corporate America is changing for the better when it comes to the environment–and no doubt, many companies are–the pace of change is too slow and the ambitions of business leaders are too modest. Incremental change is not getting us where we need to go. [click to continue…]

Patagonia helps to save….Patagonia

A merino sheep ranch under Ovis XXI management in the Patagonian Steppe ecoregion of Argentina’s Neuquén Province. The Conservancy is working with Ovis XXI to protect Argentina’s temperate grasslands by promoting best practices in sustainable grazingThe more I learn about Patagonia Inc., the more impressed I am with the way that Yvon Chouinard and his colleagues run their business. The outdoor gear and clothing company supports what it calls the “silent sports” of climbing, skiing, snowboarding, surfing, fly fishing, paddling and trail running–none of which require a crowd or a motor to be enjoyed. It’s an enterprise that lives up to its mission: Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.

Until recently, though, Patagonia did no business in Patagonia–a remote region of South America that includes temperate grasslands of Argentina, about 400 million acres (nearly three times the size of California) that are said to be among the most threatened, most damaged and least protected habitats in the world.

Now the company has embarked on an unusual partnership with a network of Argentine ranchers and The Nature Conservancy that is intended to build a sheep-grazing business that will not only protect, but restore parts of the Patagonian grasslands.

It’s a test of an intriguing idea–that a company that sells stuff to people can not only do less harm to the earth, but use the power of business to do environmental good.

“Can a company ever be regenerative?” asks Jill Dumaine, Patagonia’s director of environmental strategy. “We aspired to it, but we couldn’t envision what that would look like.”

[click to continue…]

2012’s green business heroes

Bill McKibben does the math

Bill McKibben does the math

Some say, and with reason, that 2012 was the best year ever. Never in the history of the world has there been less hunger, less disease and more prosperity. Of course there’s plenty to worry about–the fiscal cliff, gun violence, chaos in Syria and the Congo–as always there will be. But, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, the long arc of history bends towards a more just and sustainable world.

In the little corner of the world that occupies much of my attention–the places where business and sustainability intersect–it has not been a good year. Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. We’re burning more coal, oil and gas than ever. Policy is stuck, in the US and internationally. This will be the hottest year on record in the US, and still people don’t accept the science of climate change. Go figure.

That said, in this final blogpost of 2012,  I’d like to salute some people (again, mostly from the world of business and sustainability) who fought the good fight during the year  just past. Some are business people, others are politicians, activists and even journalists, but they are all doing what they can to bend the arc of history. They’re my green business heroes for 2012. [click to continue…]

Inside the Sustainable Apparel Coalition

The story of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition begins with a letter designed to get the attention of even a busy CEO. At the top: the logos of Walmart and Patagonia. John Fleming, who was then Walmart’s chief merchandising officer, and Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia’s founder, signed the letter, which invited chief executives of some of the world’s biggest clothing companies–fierce competitors, ordinarily–to join together to develop an index to measure the environmental impact of their products.

Their pitch, in part, read like this:

Creating a single approach for measuring sustainability in the apparel sector will do much more than accelerate meaningful social and environmental change. Standardization will enable us to maximize sustainability benefits for all buyers without investing in multiple sustainability technologies and certification processes, and ultimately empower consumers to trust claims regarding sustainably sourced apparel.

Finally, as an industry, we will benefit from the unique opportunity to shape policy and create standards for measuring sustainability before government inevitably imposes one.

…The time is right and the need is great for the apparel sector to move forward now, without further delay, in unison, with strong partners like you.

It was a risky proposition. What if it turned out that a competing company had a better sustainability story to tell? Would consumers be given access to the index? NGOs? Regulators? Most big retailers knew that they had very little visibility deep into their supply chains. Did they really want to find out, for example, that a supplier to one of their suppliers, in a factory they had never visited in China or Vietnam, exploited workers or dumped pollution into a nearby river? Any meaningful index would require companies to ask tough questions and, eventually, face demands from others to share what they had learned.

The letter went out on October 1, 2o09. Less than three years later, despite those risks, the apparel industry has made major progress towards creating a global sustainability index, which will be known as the Higg Index, to measure and score products, factories and companies. A first version will be released today (July 26) by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, the nonprofit group that developed the index. Its vision? Nothing less than  “an apparel and footwear industry that produces no unnecessary environmental harm and has a positive impact on the people and communities associated with its activities.” The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)  hired an executive director, Jason Kibbey, in January, and today it has more than 60  members, representing brands, retailers and suppliers who together account for more than a third of the global apparel and footwear industry.

Consumers won’t see labels with scores attached to their T-shirts, dresses or sports jackets for years, but some companies are already using the tool to measure the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, chemical use and waste of their factories around the world.

The coalition and the index mean to do more than drive incremental change, Jason Kibbey (left) told me when we spoke last week. “This is about industry transformation so everyone can benefit from reduced risk as well as efficiency,” he said.

How and why did Sustainable Apparel Coalition and the Higg Index  come together so quickly? To find out, I interviewed key players including Kibbey; Rick Ridgeway, the vice president of environmental initiatives at Patagonia and a member of the SAC’s board; Mary Fox, a former Walmart executive, who with Ridgeway got the coaliation going; Michelle Harvey of Environmental Defense Fund, a member of the group’s board; and  John Whalen, a principal at BluSkye, a boutique consulting firm that helped guide the process. This story shows what an industry can do when people get together, commit to a goal and set aside as best they can their personal and corporate agendas.

* * *

[click to continue…]

The elusive green consumer

I’d like to believe that we can shop our way to be a better world.

It’s unlikely.

If our economy is going to become more just and sustainable, change will have to come from the top down, not from the bottom up.

This roll of toilet paper helps explain why.

Called Moka, this bathroom tissue comes from a company called Cascades, which is headquartered in Montreal. It’s made from 100% recycled paper, and it has a lower carbon footprint than conventional toilet paper. Moka costs less to manufacture than ordinary white toilet paper and uses less bleach. And it works fine. Trust me–the company sent me a sample roll.

“It’s beneficial for us, for consumers and for the environment,” says Isabelle Faivre, US Marketing Director for Cascades.

The trouble is, you can’t buy Moka in a store.

That’s because Moka is being, er, rolled out exclusively in the away-from-home market. That is, it’s being sold to distributors who supply office buildings, schools, colleges, hospitals, restaurants and hotels. “Companies have that need to look green, to make them feel better about themselves,” says Faivre. But consumers aren’t ready to accept off-color bathroom tissue. [click to continue…]

Maybe the best retail ad ever

Patagonia's home page this weekend

In the midst of the madness of black Friday, and this weekend of American consumerism run amok, come a few wise words from the outdoor retailer Patagonia.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times, the privately held company asks shoppers to think more carefully about what they purchase, and the real cost of all the things we buy.

The headline: Don’t Buy This Jacket

“We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else,” the company says.

The rest of the ad is worth reading, and thinking about, so I’ll copy the text here:

It’s Black Friday, the day in the year retail turns from red to black and starts to make real money. But Black Friday, and the culture of consumption it reflects, puts the economy of natural systems that support all life firmly in the red. We’re now using the resources of one-and-a-half planets on our one and only planet.

Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time – and leave a world inhabitable for our kids – we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else. [click to continue…]